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: aiam3695OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1983, with respect to school bus warning light system that you wish to offer in response to your understanding of Utah Senate Bill No. 70. This system would allow the school bus operator to activate only the rear warning lamps when stopping on a divided highway where no traffic is approaching from the front in an adjacent traffic lane.; In our opinion, the Utah bill (copy attached) does not require such system, and a system of this nature is not allowed by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The pertinent portion of Senate Bill No. 70 reads: 'The driver of a vehicle upon a divided highway or upon a highway with roadways separated by a painted median in excess of 12 feet of width need not stop upon meeting or passing a school bus which is on the other roadway.' (Sec. 2) The bill contains no reference to the number or kinds of lights that a school bus may operate in this traffic situation. As paragraph S4.1.4(b)(ii) of Standard No. 108 requires activation of lighting systems, without qualification, we interpret it as precluding a system that is capable of partial operation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1352OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your November 8, 1973, request for a interpretation of the warning signal requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*.; S5.1.5 of that standard states: >>>A signal, other than a pressure gauge, that gives a continuou warning to a person in the normal driving position when the ignition is in the 'on' or 'run' position and the air pressure in the service reservoir system is below 60 psi. The signal shall be either visible within the driver's forward field of view, or both audible and visible.<<<; A warning that 'the air pressure in the service reservoir system i below 60 psi' is intended to mean that a warning device's sensor could be located in the system you described in your letter between the source of air pressure and the check valve(s) required by S5.2.1.5. As you pointed out, this location would sense pressure below 60 psi anywhere from the compressor through the entire service reservoir system. A single warning installed before the check valves in a split service brake system would fulfill the requirements of S5.1.5 as long as it is positioned to sense pressure below 60 psi in any part of the split service reservoir system.; Your interpretation of the signal requirements is correct. The signa must be both audible and visible, or it must be visible within the driver's forward field of view. A simple audible signal is insufficient, as is a simple visible signal which is not within the driver's forward field of view.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4500OpenRobin C. Gelburd, Esq. Morrison & Foerster 415 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017-1193; Robin C. Gelburd Esq. Morrison & Foerster 415 Madison Avenue New York NY 10017-1193; "Dear Ms. Gelburd: This is a response to your letter of January 12 1988, asking for NHTSA's evaluation of your client's product intended for use with an add-on child restraint system to 'cushion and insulate the child.' The product, a sample of which was enclosed with your letter, is a fabric-covered rectangular seat-pad about 1/2 inch thick, surrounded at the top and both legs by a fabric-covered cushion. The product has a crotch-strap in the front, through which is inserted a belt that anchors on the legs of the rectangle. On the back of this product are two clips apparently to be used for anchoring the seat pad to the child restraint system. You asked generally whether this product will 'contravene or compromise' Federal safety standards, particularly Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). Additionally, you asked us to 'determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within (NHTSA's) jurisdiction.' Your client's product falls within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' as that term is defined in 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). Section 102(4) defines 'motor vehicle equipment' 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. In determining whether an item is an 'accessory,' the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to your client's seat-pad, we conclude that the seat-pad has no purpose other than use with a child restraint system and that it is intended to be used principally by consumers. Thus, the seat-pad would be an 'accessory,' and, therefore, is 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. The Vehicle Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard 213, which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your client's seat-pad. Hence, your client is not required to certify that this product complies with that standard before selling the seat-pad. Although Standard 213 does not directly apply to your client's product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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... There is an element of design incorporated in a child restraint system that may be affected by installing Hasbro's seat-pad. Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See 49 CFR 571.213, S7, referencing 49 CFR 571.302, S4. For your information, I enclose a copy of 571.302.) If installing this seat-pad would denigrate the flammability resistance attributes of the child restraint system, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would 'render inoperative' a design element installed in the child restraint system in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated 108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each 108 violation on each child restraint system where this design element was 'rendered inoperative.' Second, your client should know that it will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if it offers this product for sale. As a manufacturer, your client will be subject to the requirements of 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If your client or the agency determined that this seat-pad had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your client would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either: 1. repair the seat-pad so that the defect is removed, or 2. replace the seat-pad with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect. Your client, as the manufacturer, would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign. Except in the context of a defect proceeding, the agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects. Therefore, we are unable to say whether your client's seat-pad might contain such a defect. However, I wish to express my concern with one aspect of this product. The cushion that surrounds the seat pad is uninterrupted, and seems to have no provision for passing the child restraint system belt around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would render inoperative a Federally required element of design that applies to child restraint systems. That kind of action would violate 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the offender to a civil penalty of $1000.00 for each violation. Further, the seat pad has a crotch and lap belt assembly. I think it is possible that some parents may use the belt assembly on the seat-pad as a lap restraint for restraining a child's lower torso. Given that your client's seat-pad has a belt configuration similar to that which a user might expect to see in a child restraint with a crotch strap and lap belt assembly, parents may assume that the belt meets the performance requirements that apply to belts installed on child restraint systems. For example, a nonmetallic belt buckle (such as the buckle on the Hasbro sample) in a child restraint system must meet the temperature resistant specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials 'Standard Practice for Determination of Weight and Shape Changes in Plastic,' D756-78. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.2.) There are load requirements for both the buckle assembly and the webbing in a lap belt restraint system. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.1.) There are several other performance requirements in Standards 209 and 213 applicable to belts, buckles, and materials used on belts installed in child restraint systems. I am sure that your client will want to minimize the chances of a parent mistakenly using the seat-pad belt assembly as a torso restraint. Hasbro may choose to alert parents not to misuse the belt on the seat-pad. One possible means of alerting parents would be to affix a 'warning label' to the product. Please understand that this explanation is not an agency 'recommendation'. NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When a potential motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer presents us with questions concerning a product, we use the information presented to explain how our statute and regulations may apply to such products. It is up to the manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0810OpenMr. David K. Long, Consumer Microcircuits Engineer, Fairchild Semiconductor, 464 Ellis Street, Mountain View, CA 94040; Mr. David K. Long Consumer Microcircuits Engineer Fairchild Semiconductor 464 Ellis Street Mountain View CA 94040; Dear Mr. Long: This is in reply to your letter of July 26, 1972, on the subject of th situations in which S7.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 permits operation of the engine starting system, notwithstanding the ignition interlock requirements of S7.4.1 of the standard.; Your first question is whether the engine may be restarted if th ignition switch is turned off after the driver has left the seat. Our reply is that restart would not be permitted except within a period of three minutes after the switch has been turned off. There is no sequential relationship between the operation of the switch and the driver's leaving the seat, so that the starting system will have to become inoperable if the driver has left the seat and has turned the ignition off, regardless of whether he turned the switch before or after leaving the seat.; Your second question is whether the engine may be restarted if th ignition switch is turned off, then on, and the driver leaves his seat. Our reply is again that restart would not be permitted. S7.4.3 refers to operation 'if the ignition has not been turned off'. Once the ignition has been turned off, turning it on again will not revive the restart mode unless the engine is actually started again and then stopped with the ignition 'on'.; We have forwarded your check for a Federal Register subscription to th Superintendent of Documents. Enclosed you will find a copy of Notice 20, as you requested.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1702OpenHonorable Thomas F. Eagleton, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Thomas F. Eagleton United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Eagleton: I am pleased to respond to your November 18, 1974, letter asking for clarification of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations that might affect disconnection of the ignition interlock and continuous buzzer in 1974- and 1975-model passenger cars. Chrysler Corporation has suggested that our regulations make disconnection more complicated than contemplated by the 'Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974.'; The NHTSA has issued no regulations which govern the disconnection o any safety devices, including the ignition interlock and continuous buzzer. The only interlock or belt warning system requirements issued by the NHTSA specified installation of these safety features at the factory, and they are unrelated to disconnection of these devices by the dealer or any other person. The regulation in question (Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*) specified installation of ignition interlocks until October 29, 1974, when that requirement was deleted in response to legislation enacted October 27, 1974. The regulation also specified installation of a 'continuous buzzer' until December 3, 1974, when that requirement was modified in response to the same legislation, after the new system had been proposed and had been commented on by interested persons. The new system conforms to the legislative prohibition on continuous buzzers, and it is optional until February 24, 1975, when it becomes mandatory.; The only restrictions on disconnection of safety devices are statutor and, as such, are not subject to modification by the NHTSA. Specifically, the Safety Act of 1966 prohibits sale of a vehicle which does not comply with applicable standards at the time of sale, and this effectively prohibits disconnection prior to sale (S108(a)(1)). Until the Safety Amendments of 1974 become effective on December 26, 1974, (sic); The new system consists of a continuous or flashing reminder light tha operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated, and a continuous or intermittent audible warning signal which operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated if the driver's lap belt is not in use. Either the old system or new system can be provided in passenger cars until February 24, 1975, when the law requires that the old system be discontinued.; Since the permissibility of disconnection is the subject of a la passed by Congress, our regulation does not address the issue. We have prepared a short discussion of the disconnection law and I enclose a copy that explains its effect. The NHTSA is, of course, not authorized to modify this law.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5038OpenMr. L.J. Sharman 314 Lakeside Drive South Surfside Beach, SC 29575; Mr. L.J. Sharman 314 Lakeside Drive South Surfside Beach SC 29575; "Dear Mr. Sharman: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding compliance testing results. Your question arises in the context of the testing procedures set forth in Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. (49 CFR 571.302). As explained below, the agency makes available all of its compliance test results through its Technical Reference Division. However, the agency has no such requirements for manufacturers or other persons to keep records concerning any test results. Nevertheless, a manufacturer would be well advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with an applicable safety standard. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the 'Safety Act') gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each of the agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions that this agency will use to assure whether the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested is in compliance with the safety standard. NHTSA follows the established test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. The results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public in the agency's Technical Reference Division. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results. However, if the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised 'due care' in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in the manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish due care. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)). I note that the agency has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle malfunctions. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2207OpenMr. Arlen E. Riggs, Legal Manager, Peterbilt Motors Company, 38801 Cherry Street, P.O. Box 404, Newark, CA, 94560; Mr. Arlen E. Riggs Legal Manager Peterbilt Motors Company 38801 Cherry Street P.O. Box 404 Newark CA 94560; Dear Mr. Riggs: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1976, asking whether i would violate Standard No. 108 to wire truck tractors to permit 'the customers to activate the truck trailer tail lamps when the tractor marker lamps are activated rather than when the headlamps are activated.'; S4.5.3 of Standard No. 108 which requires the tail lamps to b illuminated when the headlamps are activated applies only to single motor vehicles and not combinations thereof. Therefore we confirm your understanding that the wiring circuitry you propose to install will not violate Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0390OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., Suite 406, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. David J. Humphreys Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. Suite 406 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1971, concerning th application of sections 111 and 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1400, 1402), and the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573), to manufacturers of slide-in campers.; In your letter, you state your conclusion that slide-in campers ar items of motor vehicle equipment, that consequently, sections 113(a), 113(b), 113(c), 113(d) and 113(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1402(a), 1402(b), 1402(c), 1402(d), 1402(e)) do not apply to manufacturers of slide-in campers, that Part 573, 'Defect Reports,' similarly does not apply to them, but that section 111 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1400) does apply to them. You request that we confirm these conclusions or advise you in which areas we disagree.; You are correct in concluding that a slide-in camper is an item o motor vehicle equipment under the Act. The Administration's position has not changed since publication of the ruling of March 26, 1968 (33 F.R. 5020), to which you refer, concerning the classification of slide-in campers as items of motor vehicle equipment. We also agree with your conclusion that sections 113(a), 113(b), and 113(c) of the Act, do not directly apply to manufacturers of slide-in campers. They apply, as you state, only to manufacturers of motor vehicles.; We also agree with your conclusion that section 113(d) of the Act (1 U.S.C. 1402(d)) and Part 573, Defect Reports, do not apply to manufacturers of slide- in campers or other motor vehicle equipment. We also agree that section 111 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1400) does apply to both equipment and vehicle manufacturers.; We do not agree, however, with your position that section 113(e) of th Act (15 U.S.C. S 1402(e)) applies only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. To read section 113(e) in this manner would allow one of the basic remedial provisions of the Act to be ineffective in dealing with a vast segment of the industry that the Act is intended to regulate. Our position is that section 113(e) applies both to manufacturers of motor vehicles and to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and that sections 113(a), 113(b) and 113(c) as referenced in that section also apply to both types of manufacturers. We believe this conclusion to be clearly reflected in the language of these sections. While the language of section 113(a) refers only to manufacturers of motor vehicles, section 113(e) refers with equal emphasis to manufacturers of a motor vehicle *or* item of motor vehicle equipment.; To summarize, while manufacturers of slide-in campers or other moto vehicle equipment are not obligated to conduct voluntary defect notification campaigns pursuant to section 113(a), should the Administrator determine, pursuant to section 113(e), that a slide-in camper or other item of motor vehicle fails to comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard, or contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety, then the Administrator is authorized to order the manufacturer of that item of motor vehicle equipment to conduct a notification campaign, as specified in sections 113(a), 113(b), and 113(c). Failure or refusal by the manufacturer to do so may result in a violation of section 108(a)(4) of the Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(4)) and the impositions of the sanctions specified in sections 109 (15 U.S.C. S 1398) and 110 (15 U.S.C. S 1399).; I wish to point out that, in practice, manufacturers of slide-i campers or other motor vehicle equipment and manufacturers of motor vehicles may be treated similarly under section 113. When the Administration has reason to believe that either a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment fails to comply with an applicable standard or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is generally requested to discuss the matter informally before a formal determination is made pursuant to section 113(e). Most manufacturers have, at this point, and irrespective of whether they manufacture vehicles or equipment, voluntarily offered in the best interests of safety to notify owners of record of the problem.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5468OpenMr. Michael Love Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno, Nevada 89520-3911; Mr. Michael Love Manager Compliance Porsche Cars North America Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno Nevada 89520-3911; Dear Mr. Love: We have received your letter of November 29, 1994 asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 591. Specifically, Porsche wishes to import vehicles for the Canadian market through the Port of Charleston, where certain processing activities will be performed on the cars before they are exported to Canada. The temporary importation of Canadian-market cars would be through 591.5(c) which allows importation 'solely for export', provided that the vehicle is so labeled. You have asked for our concurrence in your interpretation of 591.5(c). We agree that Porsche may import and export Canadian-market cars under this section of the importation regulation. You foresee a situation in which 'a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U.S. customer'. Porsche would like to be able to convert the vehicle to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards after importation and before it leaves Porsche's control. Porsche would also like to be able to re-import from Canada into the U.S. vehicles that would be converted to U.S. specifications. You have asked for confirmation that these operations would also be permissible under 591.5(c). Importation of noncomplying motor vehicles into the United States and their subsequent conversion to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be accomplished through the mechanisms established by Congress in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (now 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.). First, NHTSA must have decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. Second, a vehicle intended for sale must be imported under bond by one who has been designated a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, who will undertake to bring the vehicle into compliance and to submit appropriate proof of this to NHTSA. Porsche may become a Registered Importer by filing an application under Part 592. If a vehicle intended for the Canadian market has been temporarily imported under 591.5(c), and Porsche then wishes to convert it to U.S. specifications rather than export it to Canada, you should telephone Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (202-366-2830), to apprise him of the situation. We see no problem in this as long as NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation and Porsche provides a compliance package, in accordance with the requirements of Parts 592 and 593. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2657OpenMr. Charles E. Klatt, Senior Director, Codes, Legalities, Testing & Training, Holiday Rambler Corporation, 65528 St. Road 19, Wakarusa, IN, 46573; Mr. Charles E. Klatt Senior Director Codes Legalities Testing & Training Holiday Rambler Corporation 65528 St. Road 19 Wakarusa IN 46573; Dear Mr. Klatt: This responds to your June 1, 1977, letter asking several question about the applicability of Federal safety standards to travel trailers and motor homes.; You first ask whether bed sheets and decorative bedspreads shipped wit a motor home are required to meet Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. The items required to meet the standard are listed in S4.1 of the standard. That list does not include sheets or bedspreads. Therefore, they are not required to comply with the standard.; In a related question pertaining to Standard No. 302, you ask whethe 'mattress cover' as that term is used in the standard refers to the permanent mattress ticking or to a removable mattress cover. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the standard applies to both the permanent ticking and the removable cover. Therefore, both must comply with the requirements of Standard NO. 302.; In a question pertaining to Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, yo ask whether it is permissible to label a bench seat 'not for occupancy while vehicle is in motion' on one label or whether a seat must be labeled at each seating position. Standard No. 207 requires only one label for a bench seat in a motor home. You should note that Standard No. 207 does not apply to travel trailers.; You ask whether the NHTSA has jurisdiction over safety-related defect in motor homes not covered by safety standards. The agency has general defect jurisdiction granted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) for all safety-related motor vehicle defects. The NHTSA's defect jurisdiction also extends to the nonoperational safety of a vehicle.; In a final question you ask whether the agency has jurisdiction ove travel trailers. The NHTSA has jurisdiction over 'any motor vehicle' which is defined in the Act as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power...' Therefore, the NHTSA has jurisdiction over travel trailers that is identical to its jurisdiction over any other motor vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.