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: 3007yyOpen Mr. Richard H. Lucki Dear Mr. Lucki: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked whether a planned gear position display for automatic transmission vehicles would meet the standard's requirement that full gear position information be provided in a single location. As discussed below, the answer to that question is yes. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. As you are aware, on March 26, l99l, this agency published in the Federal Register a final rule amending Standard No. l02. Among the amendments is a new S3.l.4.4 that requires, for all automatic transmission vehicles, that full gear position information, i.e., identification of shift level positions, including the position of the gears in relation to each other, and the gear position selected, be displayed "in view of the driver in a single location." According to a drawing enclosed with your letter, your planned gear position display would be located on the instrument panel, between the speedometer and tachometer. The current gear position, either P, R, N, D, 3, 2, or l, would be shown in a square, by means of electronic display. The position of the gears in relation to each other, i.e., P R N D 3 2 1, would be marked adjacent to the electronic display. You state that the gear positions in relation to each other will be illuminated when the headlamps are activated. It is our opinion that your planned design would meet S3.l.4.4's requirement that full gear position information be displayed in a single location. The gear position selected would be shown in the square electronic display. The position of the gears in relation to each other would be marked adjacent to the electronic display. Because the marking of the position of the gears in relation to each other would be adjacent to the electronic display, it is our opinion that all of the information would be considered to be provided in a single location. I note that this same issue was addressed in the preamble to the March l99l final rule, in connection with a comment submitted by Chrysler. The agency stated the following: If Chrysler wishes to provide a display of current gear position information on the instrument panel, it is free to do so. Under the amendment, it can either provide full gear position information at that location, e.g., include a "P R N D L" label adjacent to the display, or it can provide a display of current gear position information only on the instrument panel and include a display of full gear position information elsewhere, e.g., on the floor console. 56 FR l2470, March 26, l99l. Your proposed design is consistent with the first of the two options discussed in that paragraph. I hope this responds satisfactorily to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:102 d:5/29/9l |
2009 |
ID: 3008yyOpen Ms. Vel McCaslin Dear Ms. McCaslin: This responds to your letter of April 1, 1991 requesting clarification of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) and Federal regulations at 49 CFR Part 571 as they apply to 15 passenger vans used to transport students from Houston Independent Schools to an After School Program at your church. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has used its authority under the Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of various types of new motor vehicles. One type is the school bus. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for purposes that include transporting students to and from "school or school-related events." Therefore, unless your program would be considered a "school or school-related event," your vehicles would not be considered "school buses" under Federal law. In order for NHTSA to determine if your program would be considered a "school or school-related event," you would need to provide us with further information about your program. Under Federal law, the answer to the question of whether your buses are school buses bears on the legal obligations of the seller, but not those of the purchaser or user, of new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all Federal school bus safety standards if that person is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. However, it is not a violation of Federal law for the purchaser to buy or use a vehicle to transport school children that does not comply with all the Federal standards. Under State, and common law, whether your buses complied with the Federal standards may have legal significance for you as a vehicle user. Since the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles, you must look to Texas law to determine if your After School Program may use noncomplying vans to transport school children. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:571.3 "school bus" d:5/29/9l |
2009 |
ID: 3009yyOpen Mr. Bill Lewandoski Dear Mr. Lewandoski: This responds to your letter of April 30, l99l, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to the regulation of trailer stop lamp activation by Standard No. l08. You have enclosed a photocopy of literature on the Tekonsha Voyager electronic brake control. This system incorporates a manual override side bar that manually activates the trailer brakes without a corresponding activation of the trailer stop lamps. The reason for this is the manufacturer's view that "STOPPING IS NOT THE INTENT. BY NOT DRIVING THE STOPLIGHTS DURING MANUAL ACTIVATION, THE VOYAGER ELIMINATES FALSE BRAKE LIGHT SIGNALS . . . ." The literature carries the notation that "THE VOYAGER AND VOYAGER XP MEET NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION (sic) SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (N.H.T.S.A.) REGULATIONS REGARDING TOW VEHICLE/TRAILER LIGHT APPLICATION." You have asked whether Standard No. l08 permits application of the trailer brakes without activation of the towing vehicle/trailer stop lamps. It does not. Tekonsha misunderstands the function of a stop lamp. A stop lamp not only indicates the intent of the driver to stop, but also the intent of the driver "to diminish speed by braking." (see the definition of "stop lamp" in SAE Standard J568c, Stop Lamps, August l970, incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08). Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." The Voyager electronic control applies the service brakes to diminish vehicle speed, and therefore the stop lamps are required to be activated. The installation of the Voyager by a manufacturer or dealer before the initial sale of a trailer would therefore appear to be a violation of Standard No. l08 since its operation would create a noncompliance with the standard. As an aftermarket device, it is subject to the "render inoperative" prohibition of l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installing the device after the trailer's initial sale is, in effect, rendering the trailer's stop lamps inoperative when the device is used. Civil penalties are provided for with respect to violations of either Standard No. l08, or section 1397(a)(2)(A). The statement as to compliance with NHTSA regulations is wrong. We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. I am forwarding a copy of your letter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for such further action as it deems appropriate. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08#VSA d:5/23/9l |
2009 |
ID: 30102 - What is a motor vehicle - Mac Yousry - 14-000891 5.1.14Open
Mr. Mac Yousry Global Vehicle Services Corporation 1892 N. Main St. Orange, CA 92865
Dear Mr. Yousry:
This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation as to whether a crane that manufacturer XCMG plans to import into the United States is considered a motor vehicle. Based on the information you have provided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider this mobile construction crane to be a motor vehicle.
You have enclosed technical specifications with photographs and detailed descriptions that discuss the crane at issuethe XCMG XCT90U. You provided supplementary information during phone conversations with Ryan Hagen of my office.
By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is a manufacturers responsibility to determine whether a motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. The Vehicle Safety Act considers importers to be manufacturers. Manufacturers (importers) must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.
If a vehicle is a motor vehicle, it must comply with all applicable FMVSSs to be imported into the United States (Vehicle Safety Act, 30112(a)). The question presented is whether the XCMG XCT90U is a motor vehicle.
Section 30102(a)(6) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as follows:
a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.
We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle." Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles because the highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, and not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.
From your letter, specification sheet, and phone conversations, we understand the following about the XCT90U: It has a curb weight of 112,169 pounds and a top speed of 62.5 miles per hour. The crane is manufactured primarily for use on fixed job sites and only sees incidental road use for travel from one job site to another. The manufacturer estimates that a typical crane will travel 1,000 miles and service 15 job sites per year. The technical specifications state that the XCT90Us [m]ulti-axle plate spring balance suspension contributes to better passing ability
Some of the information about the XCT90U, such as the better passing ability and top speed, seem to indicate the vehicles use on the highway would be beyond incidental. However, given that the XCT90U would spend almost a month at a job site as well as other factors, we believe the on-road use of this equipment is not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Further, the XCT90Us boom specifications, lifting capacity, and overall appearance are similar to the crane evaluated in our letter to Mr. Michael E. Ogle, which we determined was not a motor vehicle.[1] Therefore, we do not consider the XCT90U to be a motor vehicle.
Please note that the views expressed in this letter are limited to the XCMG model XCT90U. This letter is not generally applicable to all XCMG vehicles. Our interpretation is based on the information you have provided us. In the event contrary information emerges, the agencys opinion is subject to change.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ryan Hagen of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Dated: 6/10/15 49 U.S.C 30102
[1] See letter to Michael E. Ogle, Schiller International Corp. (October 20, 2003) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/004597drn.html). |
2015 |
ID: 30102ad_aerial_work_platformOpenMr. Mark A. Rangos Dear Mr. Rangos: This responds to your letter of December 8, 2003, concerning requirements for trailer-mounted aerial work platforms that are being developed by JLG Industries, Inc. (JLG), which are used primarily to lift personnel and materials to elevated work locations in industrial or construction environments. You state that the aerial work platform structure is mounted upon a trailer chassis for the sole purpose of portability, to move the machine from one job site to another to perform its primary function as an aerial work platform. In a normal application, the machine is towed to a job site and set up for utilization. To be prepared for use, the machine must be maneuvered into position in proximity to the work location. Once in position, the stabilizers are deployed to stabilize and level the chassis. You also state that the machine may remain on the job site for "hours, days, months, or extended periods." Lastly, you claim that towing the machine upon the streets, roads, or highways is incidental to its use on job sites and performed only for the purpose of transfer to work locations. You asked us to confirm your interpretation that this machine would not be considered a "motor vehicle" as specified under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. For the reasons that follow, we confirm your understanding. By way of background, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as:
49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it must comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then it need not comply with the agencys safety standards. Whether the agency will consider construction equipment, such as an aerial work platform structure that is mounted upon a trailer chassis, to be a motor vehicle depends upon its use. It is the agencys position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, 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, in those cases where certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways, the agency has determined such equipment to be a motor vehicle 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." Your letter states that the aerial work platform structure is mounted upon a trailer chassis and may be towed from jobsite to jobsite. Your letter goes on to state that the duration of the aerial work platform structures use on jobsites is variable, ranging from "hours, days, months, or extended periods." Based upon the information and literature you have provided, it does not appear that your aerial work platform structures are "motor vehicles" as that term is defined in the Safety Act. This conclusion is based upon the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to travel between jobsites. Accordingly, your aerial work platform structures would not be subject to the FMVSS. However, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that the aerial work platform structures use the road more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding NHTSAs safety standards, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:VSA |
2004 |
ID: 3010yyOpen Mr. Norman H. Dankert Dear Mr. Dankert: This responds to your letter of May 14, l99l, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 as it relates to your patent. We appreciate that you included a copy of the patent so that we might have a better understanding of your invention. As you have explained it, "a sensor that responds to the movement of the accelerator pedal serves to maintain the activation initiated by the brake pedal until the accelerator pedal is depressed, regardless of any speed." In short, when the center highmounted stop lamp is activated by application of the brake pedal, your device ensures that the lamp remains activated when the foot is removed from the brake pedal until such time as the accelerator is again depressed. The Summary of the Invention in the patent indicates that the basic kit includes a logic circuit unit connecting the accelerator, high mounted stop lamp, and back up lamp (so that when the vehicle is placed in reverse gear, the center lamp, if on, remains on). Optionally, the unit can connect the right and left turn signal lamps (which the Operation of the System in the patent indicates "flashes that 'third' light when either turn signal is operated . . . ." You believe that your system complies with Standard No. l08, specifically, paragraph S4.5.4 (now S5.5.4) which states "The high-mounted stop lamp on a passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." I regret that we must disagree with you. The "only" activation of the center lamp permitted by Standard No. l08 is "upon application of the service brakes." If the service brakes ceased to be applied, the lamp must be deactivated. To allow the center lamp to remain activated when the service brakes are no longer applied would be to allow its activation under conditions other than the application of the service brakes. The stop lamps on the vehicle serve a clearly defined purpose: to indicate the intention of the driver to stop the vehicle, or to diminish its speed, through braking. Paragraph S5.5.4 ensures that the stop lamps will not be used at times other than braking. While use of the stop lamp to indicate a vehicle stopped by the road may be an intuitively attractive idea, we note that there is already a safety system on a vehicle, the hazard warning flasher system, that is specifically intended to be used for this purpose. We also note that the invention would appear to be prohibited by paragraph S5.1.3 (formerly S4.1.3) of Standard No. l08. This prohibits the installation of any item of motor vehicle equipment that may impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We deem effectiveness impaired when the intended function of a lamp is lessened, either by outright interference with the lamp's performance, or by the introduction of factors that may create confusion as to the meaning of the signal sent by the lamp. We appreciate the fact that you believe your invention will contribute to motor vehicle safety by indicating the presence of a car that has been put into reverse gear. However, we believe that your invention would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp. In the reverse mode, the simultaneous activation of the center stop lamp and the backup lamp could create at least momentary confusion as to whether the driver was braking, had braked, or was reversing direction. The option of the invention that flashes the center lamps with the turn signal lamps is prohibited by paragraph S5.5.10(d) which, in essence, requires all stop lamps to be steady burning in use. For the foregoing reasons, Standard No. l08 does not allow your invention to be used as original equipment on passenger cars. Nor could it be retrofitted on passenger cars already in use that are equipped with the center lamp. Federal law, in essence, prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, from rendering a safety system wholly or partially noncompliant. As noted above, your invention would have this effect on the center lamp or the backup lamp. We would also caution against use of your device in conjunction with aftermarket high-mounted stop lamps intended for retrofit on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. l08 to be equipped with them (i.e., passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, light trucks, and vans manufactured before September 1, l992). In our opinion, the reasons expressed in the last two sentences of the preceding paragraph would continue to apply to the backup lamp system. Even if permitted under Federal law, the laws of the individual States where an invention is sold may prohibit such a device. We are not in a position to advise on the acceptability of inventions under States laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:VSA#l08 d:6/3/9l |
2009 |
ID: 3011yyOpen Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki Dear Mr. Dembecki: This responds to your letter of April 24, 1991, commenting on my letter to you of April 8. In response to your request to review and comment on your video tape of your device, I asked our research and development office to review it. They indicated that although the device has some intuitive appeal, there is no technical basis to show that it would reduce accidents. In fact, our agency sponsored a field test of a similar system that flashed the center highmounted stop lamp. We found no significant difference in accident rates compared to a steady-burning signal. Attached is the abstract page of this study for your information. In closing, I note your comment that "My l99l Oldsmobile was retrofitted within l5 minutes" with the module causing the center high mounted stop lamp to flash. Since you did not say that you had performed the retrofit, we assume that it "was retrofitted" by another person. As I advised you on April 8, the center lamp must be steady-burning. Further, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (specifically Title l5, United States Code, Section 1397(a)(2)(A)) forbids a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard, i.e., that converts the steady-burning center lamp into a flashing one. However, the prohibition does not apply to individual owners of vehicles if they are not "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" capable of performing the modification themselves. Sincerely
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure /NCC-01:ZTVinson:amb:62992:5/2/91:OCC# 5898, WANG# 5427o NCC-20 Subj/Chron ZTV, NRD ref:l08 d:5/23/9l |
2009 |
ID: 30122 - Make inoperative - Alan Nappier april 14OpenMr. Alan Nappier Earl Stewart Toyota 1215 U.S. Highway 1 Lake Park, FL 33403 Dear Mr. Nappier: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law requires repair shops to repair vehicles using only parts provided by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and not aftermarket parts. You enclosed a December 2010 collision repair information bulletin from Toyota which states that repairing a vehicle using OEM parts and procedures can help return Toyota vehicles to pre-loss condition following a collision. The bulletin states that Toyota vehicles are engineered and manufactured as an integrated assembly of carefully designed and manufactured parts and that Toyota does not recommend the use of alternative parts for the repair of Toyota vehicles. I understand, from telephone conversations you had with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, that you support the idea of using OEM parts. You ask: If the vehicle manufacturer states that the exterior sheetmetal [sic] of an automobile is an integral part of the Supplemental Restraint System and I install untested aftermarket sheetmetal provided by a non-OEM manufacturer (aftermarket), am I, as a repair business, in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 [make inoperative provision]? As explained below, we recommend following the vehicle manufacturers advice about the repair. However, the short answer to your specific question is no. When repairing a used vehicle, it does not violate 30122 on its face for you to use aftermarket parts in the repair of the vehicle. Background: Safety Act The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act; 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue an array of FMVSSs for new vehicles and certain equipment items. Section 30112(a)(1) of the Safety Act specifies that, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title. As applied to your inquiry, because of this statutory requirement, no person can legally sell or offer for sale a new vehicle that had been repaired if the new vehicle does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. However, once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the FMVSSs. This is because 30112(b)(1) of the Safety Act provides that the prohibitions in 30112(a) do not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment in good faith other than for resale. After the first purchase of a vehicle, the provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in 30122 of the Safety Act. That section provides, in relevant part: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Discussion The answer to your question depends in part on when the repair is made. New vehicle: In the case of a repair of a new vehicle prior to its delivery to the first consumer purchaser, it is our view that, if the vehicle manufacturer recommends that only an OEM part should be used, the repair shop[1] must use the OEM part or contact the manufacturer to get its concurrence that the vehicle will meet the FMVSSs with the non-OEM part. Without such concurrence, if the repair results in the new vehicle not complying with the FMVSSs, the repair shop using the aftermarket part could be liable for violating 30112(a)(1) and 30122 of the Safety Act. Used vehicle: In the case of a repair of a used vehicle, use of aftermarket parts in the repair of that vehicle is not prohibited per se by 30122.[2] Use of an aftermarket part is permitted by Federal law as long as the repair shop does not knowingly make inoperative the compliance of a required safety system. Please note, however, the following about the knowingly aspect of 30122. An entity does not need to have actual knowledge that a device or element of design would be made inoperative by the entitys modification of a vehicle or item of equipment in order for that modification to violate 30122. A violation may occur if the entity should have known that a device or element of design would be made inoperative by the entitys modification. Accordingly, the agency will assess whether the entity exercised reasonable judgment in undertaking the modification and reasonable skill in implementing it. Even if the entity claimed that it did not know that a device or element of design would be made inoperative by the entitys modification, NHTSA will conduct such an assessment to determine whether the entity should have known that the device or element of design would be made inoperative. The agency will pursue such cases under appropriate circumstances. Keep in mind also that 30122 does not require repair shops to restore safety systems damaged in a collision to a new or pre-crash condition.[3] Instead, under 30122, when any repair to a vehicle is completed, the vehicle must be returned to the customer with the safety systems capable of functioning at least as well as they were able to when the vehicle was received by the repair shop.[4] We emphasize that some of our safety standards apply to new equipment items, both OEM and replacement equipment. For example, we have FMVSSs applying to lamps and reflectors, tires, windows and windshields, brake hoses, and seat belt assemblies. If your repair involves using new equipment items that are covered by an equipment FMVSS, under 30112(a)(1) of the Safety Act, the equipment must be certified as meeting the FMVSS. In addition, NHTSA has the authority to pursue any apparent safety problems with aftermarket parts under the defect provisions of the Safety Act. If evidence demonstrated that the aftermarket part presented an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, NHTSA could order the manufacturer of the equipment to remedy the defect free of charge. Persons aware of an apparent defect can report it to NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation at https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/. In closing, please note that the above interpretation has no bearing on contractual agreements between a repair shop and a dealer and/or the vehicle manufacturer to undertake repairs in a certain manner or to use certain parts. Moreover, States may have relevant laws or regulations governing motor vehicle repair. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 4/17/15 Ref: 49 USC Sec. 30122
[1] For purposes of this letter, we include in this term repair shop all the entities listed in 30122. [2] The Conference report on the make inoperative provision states: It is not the purpose of this amendment to limit in any way the use of independent aftermarket repair and service parts in the repair or replacement of components incorporated in the vehicle at the time of manufacture pursuant to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. [3] See, e.g., http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/aiam/aiam4681.html, letter to Linda L. Conrad, January 19, 1990. [4] Nonetheless, NHTSA strongly encourages repair shops to restore functionality to safety systems to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide crash protection for occupants during the life of the vehicle. |
2015 |
ID: 3012yyOpen Mr. Masaharu Morino Dear Mr. Morino: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR 571.211). In your letter, you enclosed two samples of "spinner" hubcaps, a product sheet describing several different designs of spinner hubcaps, and a letter from the New York Area Director of the U.S. Customs Service regarding spinner hubcaps. You asked whether these "spinner" hubcaps may legally be imported into this country from Taiwan. The answer is no. Spinner hubcaps may not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States, nor may they legally be imported into the United States. I have enclosed copies of this agency's March 16, 1988 letter to Representative Terry L. Bruce, a May 13, 1987 letter to Representative William E. Dannemeyer, and a November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. These letters reaffirmed past interpretations stating that spinner hubcaps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hubcaps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added.). We would consider each sale or offer for sale of spinner hubcaps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000. In your letter, you stated that some spinner hubcaps are currently being manufactured in the U. S. Thank you for alerting us to this situation. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action. I have also sent a copy of this letter to the Area Director of Customs for the New York Seaport. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures cc: Area Director of Customs New York Seaport New York, New York 10048 re: CLA-2-87:S:N:N1:101 835326 /ref: 211 d:6/4/9l |
2009 |
ID: 3036yyOpen Mr. Stephen Mamakas Dear Mr. Mamakas: In a telephone conversation with Stephen Kratzke of my staff, you asked for a clarification of my May 13, 1991 letter to you. My May 13 letter explained that Federal law would not affect any plans to repair air bags, but that a host of safety concerns and potential product liability issues under State law would arise in connection with any planned operation to repair air bags. You explained in your telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke that the last paragraph of my May 13 letter to you suggests that I did not fully understand your company's plans. In that last paragraph, I referred to repacking a deployed air bag. In your telephone conversation, you explained that your company would not reuse any used equipment. Instead, you plan on installing the new air bags and new sensors recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. After your company completes its work on the vehicle, you are prepared to certify that the air bag will work as intended by the vehicle manufacturer. You asked how this difference would change the answer in my May 13 letter. This new information would not affect my previous advice that Federal law does not affect your planned repair operations. However, the safety concerns I expressed in my previous letter would be addressed if your company's repairs used only the replacement parts for the air bag system recommended by the vehicle manufacturer and installed those parts in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's instructions. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:208#VSA d:6/ll/9l |
1970 |
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.