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: aiam2178OpenMr. John Evans, Wenke, Burge, and Taylor, 1055 N. Main St., Suite 801, Santa Ana, CA 92701; Mr. John Evans Wenke Burge and Taylor 1055 N. Main St. Suite 801 Santa Ana CA 92701; Dear Mr. Evans: I am writing in response to questions you raised in a January 7, 1976 telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the determinations of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for a boat trailer.; >>>GVWR is defined as: the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of single vehicle. (49 CFR 571.3).<<<; One constraint on this specification is found in the Certificatio regulation, which requires that the GVWR be; >>>not less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated carg load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity ... . (49 CFR 567.4(g)(3))<<<; 'Rated cargo load' is not defined. If a manufacturer does not provide cargo load rating to dealers or consumers, the NHTSA expects his determination of GVWR to reflect a good faith evaluation of the vehicle's load carrying capacity. In the case of a boat trailer, this evaluation should be made with the assumption that the trailer is attached to a towing vehicle and should include that portion of the trailer's load that is carried by the towing vehicle.; >>>GAWR, on the other hand, is defined as: the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load varyin capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.<<<; The GAWR of a boat trailer's axle system could thus be less than th GVWR, because some of the trailer's load would be carried by the towing vehicle. However, the NHTSA would consider a boat trailer with a GAWR that is less than the actual load on its axle system, when loaded to its GVWR and attached to a towing vehicle, to contain a safety-related defect, which is subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; The NHTSA expects to issue, in the near future, Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire and rim selection for vehicles other than passenger cars* (49 CFR 571.120). Until the effective date of that standard, however, we will continue to consider a vehicle with tires insufficient for its gross axle weight ratings to contain a safety-related defect.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0145OpenMr. W.J. Sears, Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association, 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. W.J. Sears Vice President Rubber Manufacturers Association 1346 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Sears: This letter reaffirms the position of the National Highway Safet Bureau with respect to the handling of petitions for the addition of new tires as stated in recent telephone discussions with members of the Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance.; It was related during these discussions that further action on th petition of November 13, 1968, requesting the addition of the C78-13 tire size designation to Table I-J of the Appendix A of Standard No. 109 cannot be taken until the information indicating compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is received covering the desired test rim width. The Standards are directed at total motor vehicle safety: accordingly, they are just as applicable to replacement tires as to tires intended for new motor vehicles and the guidelines for addition of new tire size designations and new alternative rims to Standards No. 109 and No. 110 as published in the *Federal Register* of October 5, 1968, therefore apply.; The question of a precedence having been established by the addition o the 5 1/2JJ alternative rim to Table I of the appendix to Standard No. 110, without supporting date, in the case of the C70-15 tire size designation has been raised by your organisation. Our records indicate that your request for the addition of this tire size was based on the petition of August 19, 1968. This Action was well in advance of the procedural guidelines established on October 5, 1968. Although this test rim was added to Table I of the appendix A of Standard No. 110, without test date, the National Highway Safety Bureau believes that a safety hazard could exist if this tire and rim combination is not compatible. We Would, therefore, appreciate test information certifying compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 110 by the 5 1/2JJ rim and the C70-15 tire size combination.; Our records indicate that you have submitted petitions dated July 1 and August 29, 1968, requesting the addition of twelve additional alternative rim sizes to Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 110. To date, data indicating compliance with Standards No. 109 and No. 110 has not been received and we have advised you in several telephone discussions that no action is contemplated until data is submitted.; In conclusion, We would like to reiterate that all future petitions fo additions to Standards No. 109 and No. 110 must be submitted in accordance with the guidelines published in the *Federal Register* on October 5, 1968. The Bureau makes no provisions or exceptions based on the ultimate use of tha(sic) tires. All new tires will be considered within the framework of these guidelines.; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr. Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2482OpenMrs. Billie Reynolds, Executive Director, National School Transportation Association, Post Office Box 324, Fairfax, VA 22030; Mrs. Billie Reynolds Executive Director National School Transportation Association Post Office Box 324 Fairfax VA 22030; Dear Mrs. Reynolds: In reply to your letter to Fred Vetter of May 6, 1977, concerning th knee room required for passengers in a small school bus, I think it is essential for your members to understand that the terms 'Type I' and 'Type II' are meaningless in the context of the motor vehicle safety standards. There is a difference in the seat spacing requirements for large buses and small buses, but in deciding which spacing a particular bus must meet, the manufacturers must use the criteria of the standards under 49 CFR Part 571, and not the Type I/Type II distinction.; In dealing with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to schoo buses, two criteria determine the applicability of various requirements: seating capacity and vehicle weight. The seating capacity of a vehicle determines whether a vehicle is to be considered a school bus. Under the definitions of bus and school bus in 49 CFR S571.3, the critical number of passengers is 10. If a motor vehicle is designed to carry 'more than 10 persons,' it is a bus. If a bus is sold 'for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events' it is a school bus. *All* school buses must conform to the applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; Standard No. 222, however, makes the criterion of weight relevant i determining the spacing between seats. In a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, section 5.2 of the standard requires each passenger seat to have either a seat back or a restraining barrier within 20 inches of the 'seating reference point,' a design point that is roughly 5.2 inches forward of the seat back. Measured from the seat back, therefore, all school buses with GVWR's of more than 10,000 pounds must provide 'knee room' of not more than about 25.2 inches. School buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less do not have to meet the spacing requirements.; Any school buses that your members purchase will therefore have to mee the spacing requirements of Standard No. 222 if they weigh more than 10,000 pounds. This weight corresponds roughly to a bus with a seating capacity of 14-17 persons, so that *most* 'Type I' school buses would have to meet the spacing requirements, and *most* 'Type II' buses would not. Always keet in mind that it is the school bus's weight, not its seating capacity, that determines the applicability of the spacing requirement.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5347OpenMr. Christopher S. Spencer Engineering 4100 Troy Road #206 Springfield, Ohio 45502; Mr. Christopher S. Spencer Engineering 4100 Troy Road #206 Springfield Ohio 45502; "This responds to your letter about the brake reservoir requirements o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are developing a new reservoir design to improve reservoir volume without increasing the need for space. You asked how to test your reservoirs since you believe that '(t)he safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed.' 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 requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The standard's reservoir requirements for trucks and buses are set forth in section S5.1.2. That section requires these vehicles to be equipped with one or more service reservoir systems that meet specified performance requirements. Section S5.1.2.2 specifies the following: Each reservoir shall be capable of withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500 psi, whichever is greater, for 10 minutes. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an air brake system reservoir has a minimum level of structural integrity. NHTSA has long interpreted the term 'withstand' to require that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceeding one percent. At one point, the agency issued an interpretation concluding that the term 'withstand' meant that a reservoir can deform only slightly and must contain the applied pressure with only a limited pressure drop at any time during the test. However, NHTSA later withdrew that interpretation because it inadvertently increased the severity of the requirement. See 42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977, and 43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978. You asked about this requirement in connection with a reservoir design that includes a bushing on the inside of an endcap. A weld is placed around the bushing. You describe two different procedures you have used to seal the reservoir. In what you describe as 'Test Criteria 1,' a socket head plug is put into the bushing with 3 full wraps of tape. With this first method, you state that as the pressure is applied to the reservoir, the endcap starts to expand out. The bushing stretches with the endcap, and as the bushing stretches the threads are pulled away from the plug. The plug must therefore be retightened several times before the required pressure is reached. In your 'Test Criteria 2,' you state that a rubber grommet or washer is placed on the inside of the bushing and forced to expand to seal the bushings from the inside. You stated that this method checks the weld but removes the threads from the test. With the second method, you state that there was no failure at over five times the working pressure. While Standard No. 121 does not specify a particular test procedure for this requirement, the language of S5.1.2.2 makes it clear that a reservoir must 'withstand' for 10 minutes a condition where the reservoir is pressurized at the specified level. Therefore, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would pressurize a reservoir to the specified level. This would necessitate sealing the reservoir. In considering how a particular reservoir would be sealed, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to evaluate the reservoir's structural integrity and ability to withstand pressurization. I can offer you the following comments on the two alternative test methods you described. The first method (Test Criteria 1) would appear to evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization. The threaded plug would appear to reasonably approximate how the reservoir would be sealed in an actual use situation. I note that the mere fact that the plug needs to be tightened during the test to achieve the specified level of pressure would not indicate a failure but would simply reflect minor air leakage around the plug. The second method (Test Criteria 2) would not fully evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization, since it would, as you recognized, remove the threads from the test, thereby creating an artificial seal. It is our opinion that a reservoir would not be capable of 'withstanding' the specified hydrostatic internal pressure if the threads failed under such pressurization. This would represent a structural failure equivalent to a rupture. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel "; |
|
ID: aiam2528OpenMr. Edmund C. Burnett, Paulson and Humphreys, Suite 400, 5272 River Road, Washington, DC 20016; Mr. Edmund C. Burnett Paulson and Humphreys Suite 400 5272 River Road Washington DC 20016; Dear Mr. Burnett: This responds to your February 3, 1977, letter asking whether th intersection of a plywood floor panel and the floor channel structure constitutes a 'body panel joint' subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*.; The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of th standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (body panel) that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the joint you describe, it appears that the joint must comply with the requirements of the standard, because it is the connection of a body component (floor channel structure) with a body panel that encloses occupant space (plywood floor panel).; In your letter, you argue that the standard is not directed at thes types of joints and that in fact the NHTSA stated that not all joints would be regulated by this standard. While it is true that not all joints are regulated by the standard, all joints between the edge of a body panel and a body component are regulated unless expressly excepted from coverage by the language of the standard itself. Since the joint you describe connects a body panel to a body component, it is exactly the type of joint for which coverage was intended.; Finally, you argue that all joints located below the floor are no covered by the standard. This is correct. However, the NHTSA has required floor panels regardless of composition to comply with the requirements of the standard, since these panels form the floor and do not fall below it.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0515OpenMr. J. A. Westphal, Senior Project Manager, FWD Corporation, Clintonville, WI 54929; Mr. J. A. Westphal Senior Project Manager FWD Corporation Clintonville WI 54929; Dear Mr. Westphal: In response to your letter of September 15, 1971, requesting ou interpretation of certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations:; >>>1. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 'Occupant Cras Protection, 'as amended at 36 F.R. 4600 (March 10, 1971). If trucks over 10,000 pounds GVWR are equipped with a seat belt system as in paragraph S4.3.2, the vehicles need not meet the requirements of paragraphs S5 and S6, which apply only when the complete passive protection system option of paragraph S4.3.1 is adopted. Of course, the seat belt system must conform to the seat belt assembly requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, 'Seat Belt Assemblies.'; 2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, 'Door Locks and Doo Retention Components.' Your interpretation of the standard's coverage is correct: there are no requirements in the standard for the installation of the latches and hinges.; 3. Part 573, 'Defect Reports,' 36 F.R. 3064 (February 17, 1971). Th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations do not require manufacturers to repair defective motor vehicles. Manufacturers are therefore free to make whatever arrangements for repair of defects they wish. Of course, we hope that in making such arrangements the manufacturers will assume the responsibility of assuring that the repairs are made properly.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4805OpenSatoshi Nishibori, Vice President Industry-Government Affairs Nissan Research and Development Suite 902 750 17th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006; Satoshi Nishibori Vice President Industry-Government Affairs Nissan Research and Development Suite 902 750 17th St. N.W. Washington D.C. 20006; "Dear Mr. Nishibori: This responds to your letter seeking to confir your understanding of the scope and application of the 'captive import' definition set forth at 49 CFR 533.4(b)(2), and used in specifying light truck CAFE standards. NHTSA's regulations define a 'captive import' as a light truck which is 'not domestically manufactured but which is imported in the 1980 model year or thereafter by a manufacturer whose principal place of business is in the United States.' The agency adopted this definition beginning with the 1980 model year in order to prevent the standards from encouraging the increased importation of these vehicles and exportation of domestic jobs. See 43 FR ll996, March 23, l978. Your letter explains that you do not believe that the light trucks manufactured in the U.S. by Nissan's U.S. manufacturing subsidiary (NMM, which is jointly-owned by the parent Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (NML) in Japan and its wholly-owned U.S. importation and distribution subsidiary (NMC)), should be classified as captive imports. Your letter also states that light trucks imported by NMC should not be classified as captive imports. As explained below, I have concluded that neither the light trucks imported by your U.S. subsidiary, nor trucks manufactured by your U.S. manufacturing operation should be considered 'captive imports.' Section 501(8) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Act) defines the term 'manufacturer' as meaning 'any person engaged in the business of manufacturing automobiles. . . .' The term 'manufacture' is then defined in section 50l(9) as meaning to 'produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States, or to import.' Under these definitions, which are also used in Part 533, NMC is a manufacturer of light trucks imported for the parent company. Since NMC's principal place of business is in the U.S., one might initially conclude that all of Nissan's imported light trucks should be classified as captive imports. However, that is not a necessary conclusion since there may be more than one manufacturer of these vehicles. NHTSA has concluded in the past that a second person may be regarded as a manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured by another person if that second person has a sufficient role in the manufacturing process that it can be deemed the 'sponsor' of the vehicle. See, for example, the enclosed February 19, 1987 interpretation to a confidential addressee. For Nissan's imported light trucks, the act of importation is the key manufacturing activity under the statute. While NMC does the actual importing, NML is responsible for the creation and production of the vehicles imported to the U.S. It designs models specifically for the U.S. market, and created NMC for the purpose of importing and marketing these vehicles. NML can be seen as 'sponsoring' the importation of Nissan light trucks. Moreover, applying basic principles of the law of agency, NML, as sponsor, may be considered the principal. It is therefore our opinion that NML and NMC are both importers of the Nissan vehicles being brought into the U.S., and hence both are manufacturers under the statute. This situation is obviously distinguished from circumstances where the importer is not connected with the foreign manufacturer, e.g., so called grey market importers. NHTSA believes it is appropriate, in determining whether the vehicles are 'captive imports,' to look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the production, importation and marketing of the vehicles. In this case, NML controls all aspects of the Nissan light trucks imported into the U.S. Further, NML exercises complete control over NMC, and created NMC for the purpose of importing and marketing NML's products in the U.S. Indeed, NMC exists primarily to serve NML as a conduit into the U.S. market. I note that this relationship is clearly distinguished from the circumstances of the typical captive import. In lieu of producing certain vehicles in this country, a domestic manufacturer imports and markets in this country vehicles (captive imports) supplied by a foreign manufacturer with which it has a special relationship. In such a case, the domestic manufacturer is not under control of the foreign company. Moreover, the domestic manufacturer does not serve primarily as a conduit to the U.S. market for the imported vehicles. Since NML has its principal place of business in Japan, and exercises complete control over NMC, I conclude that vehicles manufactured by NML and imported into the U.S. by NMC are not captive imports. Moreover, since almost all foreign manufacturers utilize U.S. subsidiaries to import vehicles into the U.S., any other conclusion would have the effect of making virtually all imports 'captive imports,' a result which would clearly be inconsistent with the agency's intent in establishing the captive import category. I also agree with the statement in your letter that light trucks manufactured in the U.S. by NMM are not captive imports. While we understand that these vehicles are not 'domestically manufactured' as that term is defined in the statute, neither are they imported. The term 'import' is defined in section 502(l0) of the Act as meaning 'to import into the customs territory of the United States.' Since these vehicles are not imported, it is impossible for them to be considered captive imports. Your letter also enclosed a copy of a letter you sent to EPA, requesting that agency's interpretation of portions of EPA's fuel economy calculation regulations at 40 CFR Part 600. You sought clarification from EPA on the apparent inconsistency between EPA's regulations, which provide separate treatment for 'domestically produced' and 'not domestically produced' light trucks, and NHTSA's classification regulations, which distinguish only between 'captive imports' and 'others.' You requested this agency's comments on the issues raised in the letter to EPA. I am not in a position to comment on EPA's regulations, or on that agency's interpretation of its regulations. I will confirm, however, that NHTSA intended for different procedures to be applied to the determination of CAFE for light trucks than those for passenger cars. The primary distinction is that under the statute, passenger cars are divided into 'domestically manufactured' and 'not domestically manufactured' fleets. The statute contains no comparable distinction for light trucks. However, under NHTSA's regulations, light trucks are divided into captive imports and 'others,' which encompasses all light trucks which are not captive imports. This issue is discussed in some detail in the final rule establishing the captive import definition. See, 43 FR 11995, 11998-9, March 23, 1978. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5039OpenMr. Charles Henry, Jr. 537 Rock Springs Road Atlanta, Georgia 30324; Mr. Charles Henry Jr. 537 Rock Springs Road Atlanta Georgia 30324; "Dear Mr. Henry: This responds to your letter that requeste information about how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. Since your device is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment,' it would be subject to our jurisdiction as explained below. In your letter, you stated that when installed in a motor vehicle, your device would automatically shut down the 'lighting circuits of an automobile or vehicle' within a prescribed time period after the motor is turned off. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the lights controlled by the device are the headlights and tail lights. By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to regulate 'motor vehicles' and 'motor vehicle equipment.' Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines 'motor vehicle equipment,' in part, as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system part, or component or as any accessory or addition to the motor vehicle... As an 'addition' to the motor vehicle that automatically shuts off the vehicle's lights, after the motor is shut down, we would consider your device as 'motor vehicle equipment.' There are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for devices that automatically shut off lights on motor vehicles, after the motor is shut down. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a device would not have to certify that the device complies with any safety standards before offering it for sale to the public. From your letter, it appears that your device is initially intended for installation after first sale of the motor vehicle to the public, but may later be sold for installation before such sale. The addition of this device to a vehicle before the vehicle's first sale could affect the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently attach a label to each of their new vehicles stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.4. The certification regulation also sets forth requirements for persons who modify previously certified vehicles by adding, modifying, or substituting readily attachable components. Such persons are considered 'alterers' of the previously certified vehicles. Alterers are required to leave the original manufacturer's label in place and affix an additional label identifying the alterer and stating that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7. As you may be aware, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays, and Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles. While your letter gave no details about how this device would be installed in a vehicle, it seems highly unlikely that a device would be regarded as 'readily attachable' if it is designed to automatically shut off lights on a motor vehicle, when the motor is shut down. Thus, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 101 and 108, with this device installed. After the first sale of the vehicle to the public, certain persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)). That section provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, 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...' To avoid a 'rendering inoperative' violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, commercial after market installers of your device should examine any installation instructions that you may have for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a 'rendering inoperative' of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements. The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your device, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either: (1) repair the product so that the defect is removed, or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect. Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that state laws may apply to the use of your device. For further information on state laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2206OpenHoward A. Heffron, Esq., 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC, 20006; Howard A. Heffron Esq. 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Heffron: This is in reply to your letter of February 13, 1976, asking for confirmation of your understanding that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not apply to lighting equipment intended as replacement equipment on motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972.; You are correct in your interpretation. The effective date of Standar No. 108 in its current form is January 1, 1972. Therefore, the term 'any vehicle to which this standard applies' contained in S4.7.1 means a motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, and school bus signal lamps intended as replacements for similar lamps on pre-1972 buses are not required to conform to Standard No. 108. This also means, of course, that the manufacturer has no obligation to certify conformance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As motor vehicle equipment, however, its manufacturer would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in the event of the determination of a safety related defect.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0391OpenMr. K. Krueger, Technical Development, Liaison Engineer, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. K. Krueger Technical Development Liaison Engineer Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Krueger: This is in response to your petition for rulemaking of June 28, 1971 You requested that Standard No. 208 be amended to allow the seat belt warning switch to be installed in the buckle instead of the retractor.; The action on petitions for reconsideration issued on July 2, 1971, i effect granted your request, allowing the warning shut-off to be keyed to webbing withdrawal or buckle closure.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.