NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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

Displaying 1091 - 1100 of 2067

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam4945 Open Mr. S. Suzuki Managing Director Suzusho Trading Co. Center Building No. 601 Fuchucho 1-12-7, Fuchu-shi Tokyo, Japan; Mr. S. Suzuki Managing Director Suzusho Trading Co. Center Building No. 601 Fuchucho 1-12-7 Fuchu-shi Tokyo Japan; Your ref: ST-9015/91 Dear Mr. Suzuki: This responds to your letter o October 16, l991, to the Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, with reference to the 'Safety Shot' lighting device that you have developed. You have enclosed photographs illustrating three types of this device in operation. In brief, the device consists of a center red highmounted stop lamp, immediately flanked by amber lamps that serve as supplementary turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps. Although the photos are not entirely clear, the device appears to consist of segmented compartments in a common housing, with thicker dividers separating the signal and stop functions. Type I incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the top of the rear window. Type II also incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the bottom of the window. Type III is located at the top of the rear window and uses conventional bulbs for its light source. You have been referred to us by Chrysler Corporation. We assume that you approached Chrysler with a view towards having your device accepted as original motor vehicle equipment. You have asked for our views on whether it is possible to use this device in the U.S. market. In the United States, the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for rear lighting is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Section S5.4 of Standard No. 108 does not allow a center high-mounted stop lamp to be physically combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Because Safety Shot appears to have a common housing for signalling and stopping functions, the lamps are 'combined' within the meaning of the prohibition. This means that the Safety Shot may not be used as original equipment on motor vehicles, and it may not be offered as a replacement for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps (required on each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985). If you wish to sell the Safety Shot as an accessory in the aftermarket, for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, different considerations apply. Installation of the Safety Shot by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not permitted if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, the function of any other rear lighting device. The question, therefore, is whether the effectiveness of the function of any other rear lighting device is compromised by the Safety Shot to the extent that the other device's function is rendered, at the minimum, partially inoperative. We note that original equipment amber signal lamps are not prohibited from flashing when the stop lamps are operating. It would not appear that the addition of the Safety Shot to a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, would compromise the signals from the original turn signal and stop lamps in a manner to render them, at least, partially inoperative. However, the Safety Shot is subject to regulation by the individual States of the United States in which it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Motor vehicles are also required to be manufactured to conform to Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Under this standard, if installation of the Safety Shot prevents the vehicle from meeting the rearview mirror field of view requirements specified, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the Safety Shot must install a rear view mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle (as a practical matter, most vehicles in the U.S. are manufactured with this additional mirror). Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam2371 Open William K. Rosenberry, Esq., Attorney at Law, Parkway Central Plaza, 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 713, Arlington, TX 76011; William K. Rosenberry Esq. Attorney at Law Parkway Central Plaza 611 Ryan Plaza Dr. Suite 713 Arlington TX 76011; Dear Mr. Rosenberry: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflet of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client 'may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements ' of Standard No. 302.; You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems, No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.; As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the additio of readily detachable (sic) components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).; With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabri supplier 'test each fabric lot for flammability before certification.' In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of 'due care' the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the 'warranty' of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a 'due care' defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own test independent of the supplier.; Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification an remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.; I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207 208, 210, and 302 for your information.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4860 Open Mr. Mark A. Pacheco Vice President Innovative Industries of Tampa, Inc. 5126 Le Tourneau Circle Tampa, FL 33610; Mr. Mark A. Pacheco Vice President Innovative Industries of Tampa Inc. 5126 Le Tourneau Circle Tampa FL 33610; "Dear Mr. Pacheco: This responds to your letter in which you aske about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a 'Walk Machine,' looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines 'motor vehicle' as: A ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. Your letter did not indicate whether the 'Walk Machine' would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a 'motor vehicle' even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the 'Walk Machine' indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles. Because this vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle,' none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam4141 Open Mr. H. Moriyoshi, Executive Vice President and General Manger, Mazda (North America), Inc., 24402 Sinacola Court, Farmington Hills, MI 48018; Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manger Mazda (North America) Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills MI 48018; Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of th requirements of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below. Your incoming letter has been granted confidential treatment in accordance with 49 CFR Part 512, so it will not be forwarded to the docket along with this response.; First, you asked whether your marking system would be subject to th performance requirements for labels, set forth in S541.5(d)(1), or the performance requirements for other means of identification, set forth in S541.5(d)(2). You indicated in your letter that this marking system would affix the required marking to engines and transmissions. Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings 'must be affixed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section or inscribed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section' (Emphasis added). This requirement means that all markings that are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, screws, rivets, or welding, must satisfy the performance requirements for labels set forth in S541.5(d)(1).; Second, you asked whether your marking system would appear to satisf the theft prevention standard's performance requirements for labels. You stated in your letter that you know it is your company's responsibility to certify compliance with the standard, but that this agency's 'opinions and comments' on whether the marking system appears to comply with the theft prevention standard would be highly appreciated.; As you noted in your letter, section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicl Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this agency does not approve, endorse, or certify that any manufacturer's marking system complies with the theft prevention standard. We will, however, state whether a particular marking system appears to comply if we are provided with sufficient information on which to base that opinion. In this case, your letter simply does not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion.; You sought NHTSA's opinion as to whether your marking system appears t comply with the 'footprint' requirement specified for labels in S541.5(d)(v)(B). That section requires that removal of the label must 'discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present.' For us to offer an opinion in this area, we must have some way to determine what remains on a part after the affixed label is removed. Ideally, we would have several labels affixed to a metal section by the means described in your letter. We could then remove the labels and examine the metal section for a 'footprint'. At a minimum, we need some means of determining what the 'footprint' would be if these labels were removed, and whether such 'footprint' would give investigators evidence that a label was originally present.; Please feel free to contact me if you need some further explanation o our theft prevention standard or if you wish to provide additional information so that we can offer an opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements set forth in S541.5(d)(v)(B).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4136 Open Mr. Earl J. Ogletree, Mr. John Gaski, Harley Products Inc., 904 S Prospect Avenue, Park Ridge, IL 60068; Mr. Earl J. Ogletree Mr. John Gaski Harley Products Inc. 904 S Prospect Avenue Park Ridge IL 60068; Dear Mr. Ogletree and Mr. Gaski: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1986, asking how our regulation would affect a product you intend to manufacture both as an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment and as an item of original equipment on some vehicles imported into this country. You described the product as a sun visor that clips onto a vehicle's regular visor. You further explained that the sun visor has an extension arm that allows the visor to be moved to filter out the sun coming in through the window to the left of the driver, or moved below the original equipment visor between the two original equipment visors. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations affect your proposed visor.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of your proposed sun visor in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.; We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazin Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the sun visors described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4212 Open Mr. Rohit Vaidya, 10288 9th Street Circle, #103, Miami, FL 33172; Mr. Rohit Vaidya 10288 9th Street Circle #103 Miami FL 33172; Dear Mr. Vaidya: This responds to your April 30, 1986 letter concerning Safety Standar No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, and your planned built-in child seat. You asked for information concerning all safety standards that would be applicable to the seat and concerning a pending petition for amending Standard No. 213 to permit the installation of built-in child seats in new motor vehicles. I regret the delay in our response.; Standard No. 213 is the only standard which this agency has issue concerning child restraint systems. It was drafted at a time when add-on or portable systems were the only type of child restraint systems. Accordingly, the requirements of the standard are oriented toward that type of system. However, the agency has granted a petition to broaden the standard to permit the installation of built-in child restraint systems. We expect to issue a proposal regarding this matter later this year. Copies of the standard and the petition are enclosed.; As a new manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you should know tha a manufacturer has a variety of responsibilities in addition to certifying compliance with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects or noncompliances with standards in their products. If a child restraint system fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either (1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or (2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense for the remedy.; Installation of your product in a used vehicle would also be affecte by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from 'rendering inoperative' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Such a rendering inoperative could occur, for example, if the installer of a built-in child safety seat removed the original vehicle seat, installed a replacement vehicle seat containing the built-in child safety seat, but did not ensure that the seat belt anchorages for adult seating positions in the replacement rear seat continued to meet the location and strength requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A rendering inoperative could also occur if the installer did not ensure that a replacement vehicle seat continued to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on that seat as a result of vehicle impact.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on a individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any product they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's seats or seat belt assembly anchorages with the requirements of Standards Nos. 207 or 210. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install products which could lessen the occupant protection afforded by the original seats or safety belt assembly anchorages and thus adversely affect safety.; For further information concerning these responsibilities, pleas consult the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2369 Open AIRMAIL, William K. Rosenberry, Esq., Attorney at Law, Parkway Central Plaza, 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 713, Arlington, TX, 76011; AIRMAIL William K. Rosenberry Esq. Attorney at Law Parkway Central Plaza 611 Ryan Plaza Dr. Suite 713 Arlington TX 76011; Dear Mr. Rosenberry: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflet of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client 'may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements' of Standard No. 302.; You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems, No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.; As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the additio of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).; With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabri supplies 'test each fabric lot for flammability before certification.' In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of 'due care' the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the 'warranty' of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a 'due care' defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.; Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification an remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq) if a noncompliance of safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.; I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207 208, 210, and 302 for your information.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4194 Open Mr. William Shapiro, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. William Shapiro Manager Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter concerning a newly designed Volvo chil safety seat. You stated that this child safety seat can be certified as complying with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S 571.213), when secured only by a vehicle lap belt, in the rearward-facing mode for infants and in the forward-facing mode for toddlers. In addition, you indicate that this child safety seat can be used in certain vehicle specific installations in Volvo vehicles, and that the vehicle specific installations 'provide a higher level of protection.' You asked this agency's opinion as to whether this new child safety seat is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of Standard No. 213 and whether it can be used in both the universal application that is, secured by only a lap belt and Volvo vehicle-specific modes.; With respect to your first question, the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) provides no authority under which this agency can assure a manufacturer that its product has been designed in due care to comply with all applicable requirements or to otherwise 'approve' it. The Act establishes a process of self-certification under which a manufacturer is not required to submit a product to the agency for approval before sale, but simply to provide a certification to dealers and distributors that it does meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that product does not in fact comply, the manufacturer must notify and remedy the noncompliance according to the Act, and it is in presumptive violation of it (and therefore subject to civil penalties) unless it can establish that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the product was noncompliant. The statute thus provides an affirmative defense to the manufacturer, but it is a defense that does not arise until there is a violation of the Act, and the burden is upon the proponent to establish it.; Under the Act a product must comply at the time of sale to its firs purchaser for purposes other than resale. This means that a manufacturer's responsibility to insure compliance does not end at the design stage, but extends through manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product. In this context whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in the design stage can be an irrelevant question if the noncompliance was caused by an error in the manufacturing process which should have been detected and corrected, for example. For these reasons we cannot provide the opinion that you seek.; With respect to your second question, Volvo can recommend its chil seat for use with a lap belt in vehicles other than those manufactured by Volvo and for vehicle- specific uses in Volvo cars. The preamble to the 1979 final rule establishing Standard No. 213 included the following statement: 'As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions.' 44 FR 72131, at 72136, December 13, 1979. Therefore, Volvo can provide the vehicle-specific installation conditions for its child safety seat in Volvo automobiles. Please note that section S5.6 of Standard No. 213 requires manufacturers recommending vehicle-specific installations to provide step-by-step instructions for securing the child restraint in those particular vehicles, as well as providing such instructions for securing the child restraint when it is used in vehicles for which no vehicle-specific installation is recommended.; Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions o need more information on this subject.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3685 Open The Honorable Charles H. Percy, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; The Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Percy: This responds to your letter of April 11, 1983 (Ref. 3098500010 requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. D. Parutti. Mrs. Parutti is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. She believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Following is a discussion of the implications under Federal law of installing these tinting films.; A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances precludes the practice referred to by Mrs. Parutti. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such a the type referred to in Mrs. Parutti's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter hi vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Render inoperative' means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles b their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mrs. Parutti may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further question (202- 426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5255 Open Mr. Greg Biba 172820 Highway QQ #8 Waupaca, WI 54981; Mr. Greg Biba 172820 Highway QQ #8 Waupaca WI 54981; "Dear Mr. Biba: This responds to your letter asking about safet regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an 'infant observation mirror' that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror. I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the 'rebound' phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

Request an Interpretation

You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:

The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590

If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.

Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam4945 Open Mr. S. Suzuki Managing Director Suzusho Trading Co. Center Building No. 601 Fuchucho 1-12-7, Fuchu-shi Tokyo, Japan; Mr. S. Suzuki Managing Director Suzusho Trading Co. Center Building No. 601 Fuchucho 1-12-7 Fuchu-shi Tokyo Japan; Your ref: ST-9015/91 Dear Mr. Suzuki: This responds to your letter o October 16, l991, to the Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, with reference to the 'Safety Shot' lighting device that you have developed. You have enclosed photographs illustrating three types of this device in operation. In brief, the device consists of a center red highmounted stop lamp, immediately flanked by amber lamps that serve as supplementary turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps. Although the photos are not entirely clear, the device appears to consist of segmented compartments in a common housing, with thicker dividers separating the signal and stop functions. Type I incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the top of the rear window. Type II also incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the bottom of the window. Type III is located at the top of the rear window and uses conventional bulbs for its light source. You have been referred to us by Chrysler Corporation. We assume that you approached Chrysler with a view towards having your device accepted as original motor vehicle equipment. You have asked for our views on whether it is possible to use this device in the U.S. market. In the United States, the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for rear lighting is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Section S5.4 of Standard No. 108 does not allow a center high-mounted stop lamp to be physically combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Because Safety Shot appears to have a common housing for signalling and stopping functions, the lamps are 'combined' within the meaning of the prohibition. This means that the Safety Shot may not be used as original equipment on motor vehicles, and it may not be offered as a replacement for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps (required on each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985). If you wish to sell the Safety Shot as an accessory in the aftermarket, for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, different considerations apply. Installation of the Safety Shot by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not permitted if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, the function of any other rear lighting device. The question, therefore, is whether the effectiveness of the function of any other rear lighting device is compromised by the Safety Shot to the extent that the other device's function is rendered, at the minimum, partially inoperative. We note that original equipment amber signal lamps are not prohibited from flashing when the stop lamps are operating. It would not appear that the addition of the Safety Shot to a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, would compromise the signals from the original turn signal and stop lamps in a manner to render them, at least, partially inoperative. However, the Safety Shot is subject to regulation by the individual States of the United States in which it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Motor vehicles are also required to be manufactured to conform to Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Under this standard, if installation of the Safety Shot prevents the vehicle from meeting the rearview mirror field of view requirements specified, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the Safety Shot must install a rear view mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle (as a practical matter, most vehicles in the U.S. are manufactured with this additional mirror). Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam2371 Open William K. Rosenberry, Esq., Attorney at Law, Parkway Central Plaza, 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 713, Arlington, TX 76011; William K. Rosenberry Esq. Attorney at Law Parkway Central Plaza 611 Ryan Plaza Dr. Suite 713 Arlington TX 76011; Dear Mr. Rosenberry: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflet of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client 'may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements ' of Standard No. 302.; You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems, No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.; As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the additio of readily detachable (sic) components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).; With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabri supplier 'test each fabric lot for flammability before certification.' In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of 'due care' the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the 'warranty' of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a 'due care' defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own test independent of the supplier.; Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification an remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.; I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207 208, 210, and 302 for your information.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4860 Open Mr. Mark A. Pacheco Vice President Innovative Industries of Tampa, Inc. 5126 Le Tourneau Circle Tampa, FL 33610; Mr. Mark A. Pacheco Vice President Innovative Industries of Tampa Inc. 5126 Le Tourneau Circle Tampa FL 33610; "Dear Mr. Pacheco: This responds to your letter in which you aske about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a 'Walk Machine,' looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines 'motor vehicle' as: A ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. Your letter did not indicate whether the 'Walk Machine' would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a 'motor vehicle' even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the 'Walk Machine' indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles. Because this vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle,' none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam4141 Open Mr. H. Moriyoshi, Executive Vice President and General Manger, Mazda (North America), Inc., 24402 Sinacola Court, Farmington Hills, MI 48018; Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manger Mazda (North America) Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills MI 48018; Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of th requirements of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below. Your incoming letter has been granted confidential treatment in accordance with 49 CFR Part 512, so it will not be forwarded to the docket along with this response.; First, you asked whether your marking system would be subject to th performance requirements for labels, set forth in S541.5(d)(1), or the performance requirements for other means of identification, set forth in S541.5(d)(2). You indicated in your letter that this marking system would affix the required marking to engines and transmissions. Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings 'must be affixed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section or inscribed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section' (Emphasis added). This requirement means that all markings that are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, screws, rivets, or welding, must satisfy the performance requirements for labels set forth in S541.5(d)(1).; Second, you asked whether your marking system would appear to satisf the theft prevention standard's performance requirements for labels. You stated in your letter that you know it is your company's responsibility to certify compliance with the standard, but that this agency's 'opinions and comments' on whether the marking system appears to comply with the theft prevention standard would be highly appreciated.; As you noted in your letter, section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicl Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this agency does not approve, endorse, or certify that any manufacturer's marking system complies with the theft prevention standard. We will, however, state whether a particular marking system appears to comply if we are provided with sufficient information on which to base that opinion. In this case, your letter simply does not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion.; You sought NHTSA's opinion as to whether your marking system appears t comply with the 'footprint' requirement specified for labels in S541.5(d)(v)(B). That section requires that removal of the label must 'discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present.' For us to offer an opinion in this area, we must have some way to determine what remains on a part after the affixed label is removed. Ideally, we would have several labels affixed to a metal section by the means described in your letter. We could then remove the labels and examine the metal section for a 'footprint'. At a minimum, we need some means of determining what the 'footprint' would be if these labels were removed, and whether such 'footprint' would give investigators evidence that a label was originally present.; Please feel free to contact me if you need some further explanation o our theft prevention standard or if you wish to provide additional information so that we can offer an opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements set forth in S541.5(d)(v)(B).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4136 Open Mr. Earl J. Ogletree, Mr. John Gaski, Harley Products Inc., 904 S Prospect Avenue, Park Ridge, IL 60068; Mr. Earl J. Ogletree Mr. John Gaski Harley Products Inc. 904 S Prospect Avenue Park Ridge IL 60068; Dear Mr. Ogletree and Mr. Gaski: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1986, asking how our regulation would affect a product you intend to manufacture both as an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment and as an item of original equipment on some vehicles imported into this country. You described the product as a sun visor that clips onto a vehicle's regular visor. You further explained that the sun visor has an extension arm that allows the visor to be moved to filter out the sun coming in through the window to the left of the driver, or moved below the original equipment visor between the two original equipment visors. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations affect your proposed visor.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of your proposed sun visor in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.; We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazin Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the sun visors described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4212 Open Mr. Rohit Vaidya, 10288 9th Street Circle, #103, Miami, FL 33172; Mr. Rohit Vaidya 10288 9th Street Circle #103 Miami FL 33172; Dear Mr. Vaidya: This responds to your April 30, 1986 letter concerning Safety Standar No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, and your planned built-in child seat. You asked for information concerning all safety standards that would be applicable to the seat and concerning a pending petition for amending Standard No. 213 to permit the installation of built-in child seats in new motor vehicles. I regret the delay in our response.; Standard No. 213 is the only standard which this agency has issue concerning child restraint systems. It was drafted at a time when add-on or portable systems were the only type of child restraint systems. Accordingly, the requirements of the standard are oriented toward that type of system. However, the agency has granted a petition to broaden the standard to permit the installation of built-in child restraint systems. We expect to issue a proposal regarding this matter later this year. Copies of the standard and the petition are enclosed.; As a new manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you should know tha a manufacturer has a variety of responsibilities in addition to certifying compliance with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects or noncompliances with standards in their products. If a child restraint system fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either (1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or (2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense for the remedy.; Installation of your product in a used vehicle would also be affecte by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from 'rendering inoperative' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Such a rendering inoperative could occur, for example, if the installer of a built-in child safety seat removed the original vehicle seat, installed a replacement vehicle seat containing the built-in child safety seat, but did not ensure that the seat belt anchorages for adult seating positions in the replacement rear seat continued to meet the location and strength requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A rendering inoperative could also occur if the installer did not ensure that a replacement vehicle seat continued to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on that seat as a result of vehicle impact.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on a individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any product they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's seats or seat belt assembly anchorages with the requirements of Standards Nos. 207 or 210. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install products which could lessen the occupant protection afforded by the original seats or safety belt assembly anchorages and thus adversely affect safety.; For further information concerning these responsibilities, pleas consult the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2369 Open AIRMAIL, William K. Rosenberry, Esq., Attorney at Law, Parkway Central Plaza, 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 713, Arlington, TX, 76011; AIRMAIL William K. Rosenberry Esq. Attorney at Law Parkway Central Plaza 611 Ryan Plaza Dr. Suite 713 Arlington TX 76011; Dear Mr. Rosenberry: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflet of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client 'may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements' of Standard No. 302.; You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems, No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.; As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the additio of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).; With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabri supplies 'test each fabric lot for flammability before certification.' In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of 'due care' the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the 'warranty' of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a 'due care' defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.; Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification an remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq) if a noncompliance of safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.; I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207 208, 210, and 302 for your information.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4194 Open Mr. William Shapiro, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. William Shapiro Manager Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter concerning a newly designed Volvo chil safety seat. You stated that this child safety seat can be certified as complying with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S 571.213), when secured only by a vehicle lap belt, in the rearward-facing mode for infants and in the forward-facing mode for toddlers. In addition, you indicate that this child safety seat can be used in certain vehicle specific installations in Volvo vehicles, and that the vehicle specific installations 'provide a higher level of protection.' You asked this agency's opinion as to whether this new child safety seat is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of Standard No. 213 and whether it can be used in both the universal application that is, secured by only a lap belt and Volvo vehicle-specific modes.; With respect to your first question, the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) provides no authority under which this agency can assure a manufacturer that its product has been designed in due care to comply with all applicable requirements or to otherwise 'approve' it. The Act establishes a process of self-certification under which a manufacturer is not required to submit a product to the agency for approval before sale, but simply to provide a certification to dealers and distributors that it does meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that product does not in fact comply, the manufacturer must notify and remedy the noncompliance according to the Act, and it is in presumptive violation of it (and therefore subject to civil penalties) unless it can establish that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the product was noncompliant. The statute thus provides an affirmative defense to the manufacturer, but it is a defense that does not arise until there is a violation of the Act, and the burden is upon the proponent to establish it.; Under the Act a product must comply at the time of sale to its firs purchaser for purposes other than resale. This means that a manufacturer's responsibility to insure compliance does not end at the design stage, but extends through manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product. In this context whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in the design stage can be an irrelevant question if the noncompliance was caused by an error in the manufacturing process which should have been detected and corrected, for example. For these reasons we cannot provide the opinion that you seek.; With respect to your second question, Volvo can recommend its chil seat for use with a lap belt in vehicles other than those manufactured by Volvo and for vehicle- specific uses in Volvo cars. The preamble to the 1979 final rule establishing Standard No. 213 included the following statement: 'As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions.' 44 FR 72131, at 72136, December 13, 1979. Therefore, Volvo can provide the vehicle-specific installation conditions for its child safety seat in Volvo automobiles. Please note that section S5.6 of Standard No. 213 requires manufacturers recommending vehicle-specific installations to provide step-by-step instructions for securing the child restraint in those particular vehicles, as well as providing such instructions for securing the child restraint when it is used in vehicles for which no vehicle-specific installation is recommended.; Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions o need more information on this subject.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3685 Open The Honorable Charles H. Percy, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; The Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Percy: This responds to your letter of April 11, 1983 (Ref. 3098500010 requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. D. Parutti. Mrs. Parutti is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. She believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Following is a discussion of the implications under Federal law of installing these tinting films.; A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances precludes the practice referred to by Mrs. Parutti. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such a the type referred to in Mrs. Parutti's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter hi vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Render inoperative' means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles b their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mrs. Parutti may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further question (202- 426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5255 Open Mr. Greg Biba 172820 Highway QQ #8 Waupaca, WI 54981; Mr. Greg Biba 172820 Highway QQ #8 Waupaca WI 54981; "Dear Mr. Biba: This responds to your letter asking about safet regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an 'infant observation mirror' that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror. I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the 'rebound' phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam4945

ID: aiam2371

ID: aiam4860

ID: aiam4141

ID: aiam4136

ID: aiam4212

ID: aiam2369

ID: aiam4194

ID: aiam3685

ID: aiam5255

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?