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: 11-005316A Buley drn (Std. 111)OpenMs. Gloria M. Buley President Woodstock Safety Mirror Co., Inc. 40 Industrial Drive Saugerties, NY 12477 Dear Ms. Buley: This responds to your letter of August 8, 2011 to this office and subsequent telephone conversations of September 21 and 22, 2011 with my staff, concerning a stop arm/mirror unit you manufacture. Your letter and telephone conversations follow up on your previous correspondence in 2006 and 2007 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and also follows on an inquiry we received earlier this year from Congressman Maurice Hinchey on your behalf. Background The previous correspondence with NHTSA concerned a stop arm/mirror unit you designed to mount on the right side of a school bus. In our interpretation letters of July 10, 2006 and March 26, 2007 from this office, we explained that your device would be considered a stop arm and mirror system subject to both Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices, and FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors. Our previous correspondence with you focused on whether your stop arm/mirror unit could be installed on new school buses with only one stop arm on the left side. We explained in the 2007 letter that new school buses equipped with your product must be certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 131. Your product would be considered a supplemental school bus stop arm. Under FMVSS No. 131, a supplemental stop signal arm on the right side of a school bus is permissible under Federal law provided: (1) two compliant stop signal arms are already present on the left side of the bus; and (2) the additional, supplemental stop signal arm does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any applicable safety standards (with FMVSS No. 111 being the most relevant). Regarding compliance of your product with FMVSS No. 111, we explained in the 2006 letter that: Based on our analysis of the materials you submitted, we believe that your system would provide supplemental mirrors. Supplemental mirrors are permissible, provided that they do not interfere with the performance of the mirrors required under FMVSS No. 111. Your letter states that your companys mirror system would neither make inoperative nor diminish the performance of any other mirrors or safety devices currently required on school buses. [A]ssuming that the statement is correct, your supplemental mirror would not be prohibited by Standard No. 111. Question
In your telephone call, you asked about the possibility of your device not having features of a stop arm, i.e., you would reconfigure the device to be only a supplemental mirror system, meeting FMVSS No. 111, and not as a stop arm. You are interested in this modification because you believe some States may be unwilling to specify a second stop arm on the left side of the school bus, which they would have to do before they could specify a stop arm on the right side. You ask: if your device were a supplemental mirror system and not a stop arm, could your device be installed on the right side of school buses that had only one stop arm on the left side. Response Based on our understanding of the information you provided, our answer is yes. If your device were not a stop arm, it could be installed on the right side of the bus as a supplemental mirror system. This assumes that the device met FMVSS No. 111 and did not make inoperative or diminish the performance of any other mirrors or safety devices currently required on school buses. Requirements for your product as only a supplemental mirror system were discussed in the July 10, 2006 letter, see in particular in the quotation provided above applicable to supplemental mirrors. You asked whether the back of the mirror system may be hexagonal[1] and painted red. The answer is yes. Nothing in FMVSS No. 111 specifies color requirements or shapes for the backs of school bus mirror systems. Therefore, FMVSS No. 111 does not prohibit the back of the mirror on your supplemental mirror system from being hexagonal or painted red. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel 1/18/2012 Std. 111
[1] You state that the hexagonal shape is needed because it serves as the backing for the mirror system. You advised my staff that cutting off the corners of the backing for a more rounded look could result in as much as $250,000 in machining costs to your small business. |
|
ID: 11-005927 K.Ro (Std. No. 135)OpenMr. Kevin Ro National Manager, Technical & Regulatory Affairs, Safety Toyota Motor North America, Inc. 601 13th St. NW, Suite 910 South Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Ro: This letter responds to your request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems, on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota). You state that Toyota is currently developing an electric vehicle (EV) that falls within the applicability of FMVSS No. 135. You would like confirmation of your interpretation that the phrase accelerate as rapidly as possible found within the test procedure of the standard takes account of a thermal protection feature in an EV battery system. The issue raised by your letter is addressed below. Among the performance requirements for light vehicle brake systems in FMVSS No. 135 is a hot performance test. Prior to conducting that test, there is a procedure, contained in S7.13 of FMVSS No. 135, for conducting heating snubs, which are designed to heat the brakes for the test. As set forth in the test procedure in S7.13.3, the vehicle is driven at an initial speed of 120 km/h (74.6 mph) or 80 percent of the vehicles maximum speed, whichever is slower. The brakes are then applied to slow the vehicle to one-half the initial speed at a constant deceleration rate of 3.0 m/s2 (9.8 fps2). The vehicle is then accelerated back to the initial speed, and the procedure is repeated for 15 snubs. Immediately after the completion of this procedure, the hot performance test is conducted. Your question relates to acceleration of the vehicle back to the initial speed. The pertinent provisions of S7.13.3 are set forth below: S7.13.3 Test conditions and procedures. (f) Time interval: Maintain an interval of 45 seconds between the start of brake applications (snubs). (g) Accelerate as rapidly as possible to the initial test speed immediately after each snub. (Emphasis added). You note that, with EV battery systems, greater power discharge results in higher operating temperature. You also note that Toyotas EV battery system is thermally regulated; that is, when the internal temperature exceeds a pre-defined limit, the vehicles speed is limited to prevent thermal damage to the system. You state that Toyotas EV is capable of achieving the initial test speed for all 15 high-speed snubs within the 45-second interval specified in S7.13.3(f). However, because of the thermal protection feature, the vehicle may not be able to attain the initial test speed for 15 consecutive snubs within 45 second intervals if the vehicle is accelerated at wide open throttle (WOT). You state that the only way to complete testing is to keep the throttle at less than WOT. You state that Toyota believes that it is within the language and intent of FMVSS No. 135 to interpret S7.13.3(g) to mean that the vehicle must be accelerated as rapidly as the motor will permit after each snub to the required test speed within the specified time interval and complete the testing. In considering your question, we note S7.13.1 sets forth the purpose of the heating snubs, which is to heat up the brakes in preparation for the hot performance test which follows immediately. The test procedure does not specify the throttle position. However, it does specify the time interval between the start of snubs and states that the vehicle is accelerated as rapidly as possible to the initial test speed immediately after each snub. In conducting the heating snubs, we would ordinarily accelerate a vehicle as rapidly as possible during each acceleration specified for this test. Although the manner in which the vehicle is accelerated as rapidly as possible is not specified in the regulatory text, in practice this is generally done with a full application of the accelerator pedal. For most vehicles, the rate of acceleration in the earlier of the 15 accelerations would not affect the ability of the vehicle to achieve the specified test speed in later accelerations. We understand your letter to indicate that when some electric vehicles are tested under this procedure, the rate of acceleration in the earlier accelerations may affect the ability of the vehicle to achieve the specified initial test speed in later accelerations, due to heat build-up and the thermal protection feature. In this specific situation, we agree that the language as rapidly as possible in S7.13.3(g) should be interpreted in the context of the necessity of the vehicles being able to complete the test sequence at the specified initial speed and within the 45-second time intervals between snubs. This means that we would complete the S7.13 test sequence by accelerating the vehicle as rapidly as possible, consistent with the need to allow the test sequence to be completed, provided each acceleration could be completed within the 45-second time interval between snubs. In the case of the vehicle that you describe, the vehicle may not be accelerated at wide open throttle for each acceleration. In heating up the brakes in preparation for the hot performance test, the key factors in achieving proper heating are the test speed of the vehicle at the beginning of each snub and the time interval between snubs (along with the snubs themselves). This performance test is not intended to test a vehicles acceleration capability. If higher rates of acceleration for the earlier accelerations have the effect of preventing the vehicle from achieving the specified initial test speed in later accelerations within the 45-second time interval, the brakes would not be appropriately heated. I hope this information is helpful. 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: Standard No. 135 Dated: 7/5/12 |
2012 |
ID: 11-007173_R_Kesler_(Std111)_Rearview_MirrorsOpen
Mr. Ray Kesler Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD. 17234 Pearlblossom Hwy, Ste 303 Llano, CA 93544
Dear Mr. Kesler:
This responds to two letters the agency has received from you dated September 7, 2011 and May 10, 2012, concerning your product: the Lane Change Safe Alert Indicator. In both of your letters, you describe your product in detail and various situations where you believe the product would be helpful to a driver conducting a lane change maneuver. As you describe in those letters, your Lane Change Safe Alert Indicator product utilizes modified OEM convex mirrors that have the alert indicators permanently inscribed on the mirror for both driver and passenger sides. Further, the mirror contains the warning Vehicles Larger Than Alert Indicator Are Unsafe to Lane Change [sic]. You state that your product is able to assist drivers in determining whether or not a following vehicle in the adjacent lane is at a sufficient distance such that it is safe to make a lane change maneuver.
It is not apparent from your letters whether you seek an interpretation of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) (and how these standards apply to your product) or to petition for changes to an FMVSS (and what such changes would be). While you state in your letter (September 7, 2011) that it is time to convert this concept into a Federal, OEM, Industry or Supplement standard [sic], your letters were not properly filed as a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 552.4. Thus, we will respond to your two letters as a request for interpretation.
We note that you have previously requested interpretations from the agency regarding FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, and a similar product that you designed. In those instances, the agency responded to your requests for interpretation[1] by explaining the requirements of the FMVSSs that apply to that product, whether or not it could meet those requirements, and the responsibilities of a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. In those letters, we explained that the previous side view mirror product that you were inquiring about could not be installed on vehicles in order to fulfill the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 before the vehicles first sale. Further, we explained that they could not be installed as a replacement for mirrors installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 111 after the vehicles first sale. However, we stated that they are not prohibited by the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 from being installed as supplements to the required mirrors. As will be discussed below, the agencys position regarding your current side view mirror product is essentially the same as our position regarding your earlier side view mirror products given the similarities between the two products.
By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Motor Vehicle Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.[2] NHTSA does not provide approvals or endorsements of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 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.
(1) Requirements of FMVSS No. 111 and Responsibilities of a Manufacturer of Motor Vehicle Equipment
FMVSS No. 111 requires passenger cars to have a driver side mirror of unit magnification.[3] While a passenger side exterior mirror (in passenger cars) is only required under the circumstances set forth in S5.3, the standard specifies that any vehicle that uses a convex mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of S5.3 must meet various requirements regarding average radius curvature.[4] Further, these mirrors are required to be labeled with the text Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear.[5]
In our previous letters to you, we explained that your earlier products would not meet the requirements for convex mirrors in FMVSS No. 111 because they do not have the required text stating that Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear and have a radius of curvature that exceeds the allowable range in FMVSS No. 111.[6] While you have not offered additional information regarding the curvature radius of the mirrors described in your latest letters, you do specify that they are convex OEM mirrors that have been modified to include the alert indicator permanently inscribed onto the mirror. As your current product utilizes convex mirrors, it would not meet the requirements for the driver side exterior mirror in FMVSS No. 111 (because those mirrors are required to be of unit magnification). Further (if we assume the OEM mirrors that your current product uses meet curvature radius requirements), your mirrors could not be installed as a passenger side exterior mirror for the purposes of meeting the requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 111 because they do not have the required text Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear.
Please note that these requirements apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. However, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard.[7] The rearview mirrors in a vehicle are considered a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Thus, if the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work will have violated the make inoperative prohibition of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act by making inoperative the mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111.
For the above reasons, the agencys position continues to be that your product is unable to meet the requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 111. Your product cannot be used by new vehicle manufacturers to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. Further, your product cannot be used to replace the mirrors installed by a new vehicle manufacturer to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. On the other hand, your product may be installed on motor vehicles as a supplement to the required mirrors under FMVSS No. 111 by a new vehicle manufacturer or as an aftermarket device.
In addition to the foregoing, please be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., vehicle mirrors) are also subject to the recall and remedy requirements in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.[8] If you were to sell your product as a supplemental mirror system and you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. Further, any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of (or remedy for) a defect may be subject to a civil penalty.
(2) Petitioning for Rulemaking
The public can petition to alter or change an FMVSS. However, this petition must be filed pursuant to the requirements in 49 C.F.R. Part 552.4. If you wish to petition for rulemaking to amend an FMVSS, you should submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to the requirements specified in 49 C.F.R. Part 552.4. If you choose to file a petition for rulemaking pursuant to Part 552.4, you are encouraged to provide the necessary facts for the agency to consider the possibility of amending an FMVSS. This would include such things as estimates of the crashes avoided, potential lives saved and/or injuries prevented. Please note, including such information does not guarantee that the agency will be able to grant your petition.
Finally, we note that you have previously filed a petition to amend FMVSS No. 111 in 1991.[9] In that petition, you requested that agency amend FMVSS No. 111 to require various characteristics on the vehicle side view mirrors that appear to be similar to the product that you described in your two latest letters. As NHTSA considered your petition in 1991 and denied it, you should demonstrate in any subsequent petition how the new petition is different from the petition that you filed in 1991 and address the agencys reasoning for denying the 1991 petition.
(3) You May Not State in Your Advertising Material that Your Product is Registered with the NHTSA Chief Counsel.
We note that, along with your September 7, 2011 letter, you included promotional material that appears to be used for the purpose of advertising your product. This material states that your product is Registered with the N.H.T.S.A. Chief Council [sic]. This representation is incorrect. NHTSA has not registered this or any other rearview mirror design. NHTSA does not approve any motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Therefore, this language must be immediately removed from the advertisement and you must refrain from making such representations in any other format.
Please respond in writing describing the specific steps that you will take to discontinue these misrepresentations. I appreciate your immediate attention to this matter.
If you have any further questions, please contact Jesse Chang (202-366-2992) of this office.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent, Chief Counsel
Ref: Standard No. 111 Dated: 9/25/12 [1] See Letter from Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Raymond B. Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (May. 14, 1992) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/7175.html); Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Lawrence Hufstedler and Raymond Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Apr. 27, 1993) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/8517a.html), Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Ray Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Jul. 2, 1993) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/8660.html), Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Ray Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Jan. 9, 2001) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/kesler23584.html). [2] See generally 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. [3] See 49 C.F.R. Part 571.111 S5.2.1. [4] See 49 C.F.R. Part 571.111 S5.4. [5] See id. [6] See Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Ray Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Jan. 9, 2001) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/kesler23584.html). [7] See 49 U.S.C. 30122. [8] See 49 U.S.C. 30118-20. [9] See 56 Fed. Reg. 42715 |
2012 |
ID: 11007Open VIA AIR MAIL Mr. Isaias Rios Product Engineering Department Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V. Hidalgo No. 8 Esquina Plano Regulador Xocoyahualco, Tlalnepantla Estado de Mexico C.P. 54080 Mexico Dear Mr. Rios: This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120. You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs. On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995. We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment," such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:110#120#566
|
|
ID: 11018Open Mr. Bryan G. Nelson Dear Mr. Nelson: Thank you for your letter asking for confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends, but does not require, school buses to be yellow. Your understanding is correct. NHTSA's recommendation that school buses be painted yellow is found in Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed). Guideline 17 consists of recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only if it has been adopted by your State or local officials. We wish to note, however, that there are safety reasons behind Guideline 17's recommendation for the uniform school bus color. Motorists associate the yellow color with school buses, and quickly recognize that a yellow bus is transporting school children. The yellow color is a signal to motorists to be especially alert around the vehicles, particularly when the buses are loading and unloading children. For these reasons, NHTSA believes all school buses should be yellow. We also want to highlight for your information that Guideline 17 is different from NHTSA's school bus safety standards, which by Federal law apply to all new school buses, regardless of State action. The school bus safety standards require new school buses to have safety systems such as energy-absorbing seats, school bus lamps, stop arms, and improved emergency exits and rearview mirrors. These requirements apply to all new school buses, no matter what the States have done to adopt them. The safety record of school buses has improved in the years since buses began to meet the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d:9/14/95
|
1995 |
ID: 11030Open Mr. Douglas Helbig Dear Mr. Helbig: It has come to my attention that Spencer Testing Services is advertising its inspection procedure as "NHTSA approved." This representation is incorrect. NHTSA has not approved this or any other inspection procedure. Therefore, I must insist that this language be immediately removed from the advertisement and that you refrain from making such representations in any other format. Please send me a copy of the corrected advertisement without reference to the inspection procedure being NHTSA approved. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:304 d:7/26/95
|
1995 |
ID: 11043Open Mr. D. L. O'Connor Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on July 12, 1995, followed up by your letter of July 13, 1995. You stated that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Colombia, South America, in that Colombia wants verification that Goodyear complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) when placing the DOT symbol on tires. You believe that Colombia will permit importation of Goodyear tires if NHTSA recognizes that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and that Goodyear's placing the DOT symbol on its tires is accepted as valid certification of compliance by the U.S. government. As Mr. Myers stated in your telephone conversation, other U.S. tire manufacturers and exporters have had similar difficulties with Central and South American countries. All those countries regard the FMVSSs as acceptable assurances of tire safety, but they do not seem to understand or are skeptical of our system of manufacturer self-certification. They want assurances from a responsible U.S. government agency that manufacturer self-certifications are accepted as valid by the U.S. government. Enclosed is a statement similar to those that we have provided other manufacturers and exporters. Since the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment, this statement is as far as we can go in getting the Federal government involved in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility. I hope the enclosed statement will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d:8/9/95
|
1995 |
ID: 11044-1Open George E. Walton Dear Mr. Walton: This responds to your July 13, 1995 letter requesting an interpretation regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You stated in your letter that your client wants to know if Standard No. 205 permits the use of laminated AS-1 glass in motorcycle windshields. The answer to your question is yes. ANSI Z26.1-1977, which has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 205, explicitly refers to item 1 glazing (defined as including laminated glass) as "Safety Glazing Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle." Motorcycles are motor vehicles. Therefore, item 1 glazing is permitted in that application. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:205 d:8/4/95
|
1995 |
ID: 11047Open Ms. Yvonne Anderson Dear Ms. Anderson: This responds to your letter of July 13, 1995, concerning a van which your company is modifying. The van is owned by a local school system. The school system has asked your company to raise the roof, extend the side door, install wheelchair tiedowns, and install a wheelchair lift. The vehicle was certified as a "bus," but your modification would reduce the seating capacity so that the vehicle would become a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV). You asked whether this vehicle must be certified following the modifications. The answer to your question is no. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. A vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards before it can be sold or imported. After the first retail sale, there is a limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC '30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:VSA d:8/31/95
|
1995 |
ID: 11059Open Ms. Colleen Grant Dear Ms. Grant: This responds to your letter asking whether your 1974 Chevrolet Blazer is "street-legal." You stated that an official of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles has questioned whether your vehicle is street-legal because it does not have shoulder belts. According to your letter, the vehicle has a fiberglass removable roof, and was originally manufactured with lap belts. You also stated that inquiries at local dealers indicate that General Motors does not make a shoulder belt for this model "because there is no place to safely mount it." We assume that you are asking whether your vehicle was originally required to have lap/shoulder belts, because many states require vehicles in use to be equipped with the same kinds of safety belts that were required by the Federal government for the vehicles when new. As discussed below, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts, but was required to have at least lap belts at each seating position. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies, among other things, seat belt requirements for new vehicles. Standard No. 208 generally required, for model year 1974 vehicles such as your Blazer, either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at each seating position, at the manufacturer's option. Therefore, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:9/14/95
|
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.