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: aiam2723OpenMr. Lawrence F. Henneberger, Arent, Fox, Kinter, Plotkin & Kahn, Federal Bar Building, 1815 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger Arent Fox Kinter Plotkin & Kahn Federal Bar Building 1815 H Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Henneberger: This responds to your December 1, 1977, request for agreement by th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the installation as original or aftermarket equipment of an electric retarder on the driveline of an air- braked vehicle would not affect its compliance with Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)(A)) requires, among other things, that no person manufacture or sell any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard. As your letter indicates, you are aware that this provision makes it impossible for the NHTSA to 'approve' the compliance of a vehicle configuration in advance of manufacture of the vehicle, because there can be no certainty that the vehicle as manufactured will actually comply. In this case, for example, the retarder's weight or the manner in which it is mounted would affect the actual compliance of the vehicle in which it is installed.; Jacobs' September 20, 1977, analysis evaluated the likelihood tha certain retarders to be imported or manufactured by Jacobs would affect compliance. With regard to these retarders, it appears that their installation as original equipment or in the aftermarket in the fashion described would not affect compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 121. This finding is of necessity limited to the retarders evaluated in the September 20, 1977, analysis.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2373OpenMr. George R. Semark, Manager, Vehicle Safety Activities, Sheller-Glove Corporation, Vehicle Planning and Development Center, 3555 St. Johns Avenue, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. George R. Semark Manager Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Glove Corporation Vehicle Planning and Development Center 3555 St. Johns Avenue Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Semark: This responds to Sheller-Globe's July 7, 1976, request for revision o the requirements of S5.4.2.1 of Standard No. 217 *Bus Window Retention and Release*, so that passage of the described parallelepiped through the emergency door can be effected with its lower surface several inches above the bus floor. Section 5.4.2.1 requires that the 45-inch dimension of the parallelepiped remain vertical, that the 24-inch dimension remain parallel to the opening, and that the lower surface remain in contact with the floor of the bus at all times.; The three specifications for passage of the parallelepiped through th opening are intended to describe, for the benefit of the manufacturer, how the NHTSA will conduct its compliance testing. These specifications do not represent a requirement that the opening be constructed without a threshold or corner obstructions. As the agency interprets this requirement, minor obstructions that do not necessitate passage of the parallelepiped through the opening more than 1 inch above the floor are not prohibited by this requirement. Thus, in the case you describe, the NHTSA would move the parallelepiped through the opening with its sides vertical and the rear surface parallel to the rear surface of the bus, just above the obstructions, but no more than 1 inch above the bus floor.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2689OpenMs. Charlotte A. Hayes, Satterlee, Mestayer & Freeman, 1606 First National Bank of Commerce Building, New Orleans, LA 70112; Ms. Charlotte A. Hayes Satterlee Mestayer & Freeman 1606 First National Bank of Commerce Building New Orleans LA 70112; Dear Ms. Hayes: This is in response to your letter of August 31, 1977, to our For Worth, Texas office and October 7, 1977, telephone conversation with Robert Churella of my staff concerning the existence of any Federal motor vehicle standard that would require doors on garbage trucks.; There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that requir vehicles to be equipped with doors. In fact, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 571.206), which regulates door locks and door retention components, specifically exempts from its application those motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has, however promulgated a standard requiring trucks manufactured after July 1, 1971, to be equipped with seat belts. This requirement would provide protection for an individual riding in a vehicle without a side door.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5459OpenVincent Ugoletti, Chief Engineer Great Lakes Communications, Inc. 3514 State St. P.O. Box 860 Erie, PA 16512; Vincent Ugoletti Chief Engineer Great Lakes Communications Inc. 3514 State St. P.O. Box 860 Erie PA 16512; "Dear Mr. Ugoletti: This responds to your September 7, 1994 letter t this office in which you stated your intention to modify a 'conversion' van into a 'production' van by replacing the original front seats with seats that swivel. You stated in an October 4 telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff that the vehicle in question is a 1994 cargo van. The vehicle has two front seats, and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 9,680 pounds (lbs.). You also explained that the work will be done by a commercial vehicle modification shop. You asked us about the requirements for swivel front seats. By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, each person selling a new vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as complying with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA has five safety standards, described below, applicable to motor vehicle seats. The original seats and seat belts on your van were required to meet the requirements of those standards when the new van was sold to you. The five standards set performance criteria ensuring that seats and seat belts provide safety benefits in a crash. Standard No. 207, Seating systems (49 CFR section 571.207), establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. The standard does not prohibit the installation of swivel seats in vans. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), specifically section S4.2.3, sets forth occupant protection requirements at the various seating positions in vehicles such as yours manufactured after September 1, 1991, and with a GVWR not greater than 10,000 lbs. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), sets strength, durability, and other requirements for seat belts. Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), specifies the flammability resistance of the seats and seat belts. Copies of those standards are enclosed, as well as a fact sheet explaining how to obtain copies of all FMVSSs. Generally speaking, once a motor vehicle is sold to its first retail purchaser, its use and any modifications made to it become a matter of state interest. Thus, owners of used vehicles may personally make any modifications or alterations they want to their vehicles without regard to the FMVSSs, subject only to applicable state requirements. There is, however, a limitation on modifications of used vehicles by commercial entities. 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an FMVSS. Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design that were installed in your van in compliance with applicable FMVSSs (particularly the five standards listed above), a business listed in section 30122 cannot modify the vehicle in such a manner as to remove the seats and/or safety belts from compliance. Accordingly, the vehicle modifier should ensure that the swivel seats and any seat belts it installs are installed in accordance with the requirements of the standards. You indicated that Great Lakes Communications wishes to maintain the safety of the original seats and seat belts. We commend that decision. NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the performance of the safety systems on their vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers or Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1949OpenMr. E. Alan Moss, Moss Motor, Ltd., P.O. Box 'MG', 5775 Dawson Avenue, Goleta, California; Mr. E. Alan Moss Moss Motor Ltd. P.O. Box 'MG' 5775 Dawson Avenue Goleta California; Dear Mr. Moss: #The President has asked me to reply to your letter o February 9, 1976, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to replacement brake hoses for MG sports cars built from approximately 1945 to 1955. #All brake hose and brake hose end fittings manufactured on or after September 1, 1974, must meet the performance and labeling requirements of Standard No. 106-74. All brake hose assemblies manufactured on or after March 1, 1975, must meet those performance and labeling requirements in the standard that apply to assemblies and, with an exception noted below, must be constructed of conforming hose and end fittings. #The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not applicable to classic or antique card in the following sense: a standard applies only to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that is manufactured after its effective date. Thus, for example, there is no requirement that MG's in question be retrofitted with conforming brake hose. However, any person manufacturing brake hose for use in such a vehicle must, on and after September 1, 1974, ensure that the hose conforms. #You may find some relief in S12 of the standard. To facilitate the depletion of inventories of hose manufactured before September 1, 1974, that conforms to all aspects of the standard except the labeling requirements, this provision permits the use of such hose in assemblies manufactured before September 1, 1976. #There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to hydraulic brake system components other than Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, and Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*. #Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3974OpenThe Honorable John S. McCain, III, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable John S. McCain III U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr McCain: Thank you for bringing to our attention the problems experienced b your constituents due to conflicting State laws on motor vehicle window tinting.; The National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard governing window tinting in new vehicles and replacement equipment, and Federal law also limits the extent to which certain commercial businesses may apply additional tinting. However, Federal law does not preclude individuals from tinting their vehicle windows. That matter is left to the States, and we understand the difficulties that may arise when the tinting laws of adjacent States are inconsistent.; Our agency has been discussing the issue of window tinting with th American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, in an effort to better explain the interaction of Federal and State laws in this area. That may also be an appropriate forum in which to consider ways to resolve conflicts between differing State tinting laws. While NHTSA and each state government has a valid interest in preserving its legal authority, we all share a common interest in promoting highway safety and in minimizing inconvenience to traveling motorists. In our view, a well-coordinated and cooperative approach among the various parties can help to address apparent problems in this area.; We will keep you advised of our progress in those discussions. appreciate knowing of your concern in this matter, and I hope you will feel free to contact me if this agency can be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed |
|
ID: aiam2666OpenMr. William B. Maddox, Secretary-Treasurer, Bedell Trailer Company, 1506-14 South Flores Street, San Antonio, TX 78295; Mr. William B. Maddox Secretary-Treasurer Bedell Trailer Company 1506-14 South Flores Street San Antonio TX 78295; Dear Mr. Maddox: This responds to your August 18, 1977, letter asking who is responsibl for compliance with the standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.; Compliance with Federal safety standards is the responsibility of th manufacturer of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381; et seq*.) as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling o motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment ....' Therefore, in the cases to which you refer, the assembler of the vehicle would be responsible for ensuring the compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal safety standards. The purchaser is not responsible for compliance with the requirements unless he assembles the vehicles, thereby becoming the manufacturer.; Dealers are prohibited by section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act from sellin any completed motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the standards. A dealer is permitted, however, to rely upon the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle conforms to the standards' requirements. Therefore, prior to sale of a vehicle a dealer should make sure that the manufacturer has complied with the certification requirements of Part 567, *Certification*, and Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, of our regulations which are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.; A dealer is not prohibited from selling an 'incomplete vehicle' as tha term is defined in Part 568 of our regulations. Such an incomplete vehicle would require further manufacturing before its final certification for compliance with the standards. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer would need to fulfill it's (sic) responsibilities as outlined in Part 568. The person who completes the vehicle would then be responsible for the vehicle complying with standards. You should note that vehicles that lack merely readily attachable components are not 'incomplete vehicles.' They are completed vehicles. The sale of any such vehicle that was not certified for compliance with all applicable standards would be a violation of the Act.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standards Enforcement |
|
ID: aiam5009OpenMr. C. Scott Thiss Chairman & CEO S&W Plastics, Inc. 10206 Crosstown Circle Eden Prairie, MN 55344; Mr. C. Scott Thiss Chairman & CEO S&W Plastics Inc. 10206 Crosstown Circle Eden Prairie MN 55344; "Dear Mr. Thiss: This responds to your letter of April 23, 1992 requesting a re-interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as it applies to your after market product, 'High Light.' This request is occasioned by the modifications you have made pursuant to my letter of January 23, 1992, to Terry Semprini, and after a meeting with NHTSA personnel on April 16. Initially, we advised that it appeared that 'High Light' had the potential to render inoperative the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. There were three reasons for this advisory. First, the placement of 'High Light' to the left of the vertical centerline did not fulfill basic locational requirements of Standard No. 108 applicable to required equipment on new motor vehicles that lamps be located one on each side of the vertical centerline and as far apart as practicable, and thus 'High Light's' signals could be perceived as conflicting or unclear when viewed simultaneously with the original equipment lamps. Second, the hazard warning portion of 'High Light' operated through the stop lamp portion of the device rather than through the turn signal system, which meant an observer could be faced with the necessity of interpreting the meaning of simultaneously flashing red and amber lamps on the rear of a trailer, as well as the meaning of the original stop lamps should the brakes also be applied. Finally, the stop lamp portion of the device comprised a combination of a 'V' and an inverted 'V', a lighting array unlike any currently in use, which could create a momentary delay by a following driver in taking appropriate action. To address these concerns, you have modified 'High Light' to eliminate the hazard warning portion, and have changed the stop lamp so that it now appears as horizontal lights across the center of the device. While it is not possible to change the intended location of 'High Light' due to the configuration of trailer doors, you believe that its placement in the direct line of vision of a following driver adds to its visibility. Although you have not fully described the revised configuration of 'High Light', we believe that it can now be described as follows. It is a diamond- shape lamp, the left side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a left turn signal, and the right side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a right turn signal. In addition, two red lamps in the center form a stop signal. We understand that the amber lamps flash when they are in use, and that the red lamps are steady burning. In this configuration, it would appear that the lamps can serve as auxiliary turn signal and stop lamps without impairing the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires on the rear of trailers. Assuming that our understanding is correct, 'High Light' would not appear to render inoperative, either in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2236OpenMr. Fred J. Greiner, Executive Vice President, NAFDEM, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Fred J. Greiner Executive Vice President NAFDEM 5530 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Greiner: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, concernin procedures for the certification of trucks on which your member companies mount tanks for the transportation of food and dairy products. The letter requested our review of six procedures agreed to by your members for compliance with the Federal certification requirements. The procedures are restated below along with our comments.; >>>1. 'Member companies agree to assume the responsibility fo notification and instruction of customers to select a truck chassis with a loaded and axle capacity rating equal to or exceeding the total weight of the completed truck chassis, i.e., chassis, tank, and payload, in order to comply with Federal safety standards.'<<<; We encourage this practice. Please note, however, that the custome himself has no duty under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended ('the Act'), the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or applicable regulations, to select a chassis with sufficient load ratings. The duty is your member companies', when presented with chassis of insufficient load ratings, to refrain from mounting tanks.; >>>2. 'Member companies agree to assume the responsibility fo notification and instruction of a customer when his new vehicle is received to obtain an incomplete vehicle certification supplied by the truck manufacturer, and to retain this certification in the truck cab until his tank is mounted as a complete unit.'<<<; Assuming that by 'incomplete vehicle certification supplied by th truck manufacturer' you mean the document referred to in S 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, we encourage this practice as well. Please note once again, however, that the customer has no duty under applicable law to obtain or retain this document. Provision of the document is the duty of the chassis manufacturer. While your members are free to require of their customers the obtaining and retention of the document, this would be a solely contractual requirement.; >>>3. 'In the event that the customer has the chassis altered by a intermediate party such as lengthening the frame, adding an axle, or changing tire size and/or specifications, member companies agree to advise the customer of his responsibility for obtaining from the intermediate shop a certificate stating the new gross vehicle weight rating and new gross axle weight rating, and that the vehicle complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards.'<<<; This does not correctly state the applicable law, for the reason discussed in no. 2 above. Pursuant to S 568.5, it is the duty of the intermediate manufacturer to pass on the incomplete vehicle document. The customer's duty is a matter of private contract. Further, the incomplete vehicle document need not certify that the chassis complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It must simply provide the statements and information set out in S 568.4(a), with such addendum as may be necessary.; >>>4. 'The member company, as a transportation tank manufacturer, a the time of mounting the customer's tank on the new truck chassis at his plant, will be responsible to certify through the preparation of a completed vehicle certification that the unit complies with requirements set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.'<<<; That is correct. >>>5. 'When a new truck chassis is received at a member company's plan for mounting with no or improper 'incomplete vehicle certification' documents, the vehicle will be certified for 'no load' carrying capacity.'<<<; This practice is improper. A vehicle may not be certified for 'no load carrying capacity. S 567.5 of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, requires that Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWR's) be stated. S 567.5(a)(5) explicitly provides that the GVWR:; >>>shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rate cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity...<<<; Further, where your member company mounts a tank that is designed t carry a particular commodity, the rated cargo load on which he bases the ratings should not be less than what he can reasonably expect the user to consider a 'full load' of that commodity. The incomplete vehicle document is designed to protect the final stage manufacturer in his certification of the completed vehicle.; >>>6. 'When the gross vehicle weight ratings or gross vehicle axl ratings are less than the required rating for the capacity of the tank, the member company will state the limited carrying capacity to meet Federal standards on the certification document.'<<<; For the reasons discussed in no. 5 above, this practice is no necessarily proper. In particular, if it is reasonable to expect that the user will load the vehicle to its full volumetric capacity despite your member company's specification on the certification plate of a 'limited carrying capacity', then the vehicle would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect, subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act.; If you have any further questions, please feel free to write. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4248OpenMr. Dan Wilinsky, Corporate Communications Group, Inc., #34 Corporate Woods, Suite 220, 10950 Grandview Drive, Overland Park, KS 66210; Mr. Dan Wilinsky Corporate Communications Group Inc. #34 Corporate Woods Suite 220 10950 Grandview Drive Overland Park KS 66210; Dear Mr. Wilinsky: This responds to your recent letter, in which you posed severa questions about a device you would like to sell. The device is a mirror attachment for rear-facing infant seats, which would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations, and will address your questions in the order they were posed in your letter.; >>>A, Would this mirror attachment, made of plastic and Milar (sic) violate and Federal safety standards?<<<; RESPONSE: The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are issued unde the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). In this case, you would be most concerned with Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213), a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Please note that the Safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, including Standard No. 213, do not apply to the child restraint system after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule then is that aftermarket accessories may be added to child restraint systems without violating Standard No. 213.; This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: '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 ...' There are two elements of design which might be affected by adding your mirror attachment. One of the elements of design required in all child restraint systems that might be affected by your mirror attachment is resistance to flammability. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 specifies: 'Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302.' I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information. The other element of design that might be affected by your mirror attachment relates to the head impact protection requirements of S5.2.3 of Standard No. 213. That sections requires that each system surface contactable by the child's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that child restraint occupants will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your mirror would impair either the flammability resistance or the head impact protection of the child restraint system, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing the mirror would be rendering inoperative a federally required element of design, thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each child restraint on which a federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation.; If child restraint owners installed these aftermarket mirrors, the would not be required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design provided under either the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 213 or the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, this agency would urge you voluntarily (sic) avoid rendering any such elements inoperative.; Additionally, you should be aware that you will be a manufacturer o motor vehicle equipment, if you manufacture the child restraint mirror for sale, and as such will be subject to the requirements of 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. If it were determined that your mirror had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and either:; >>>1. repair the product so that the defect is removed, or 2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalen product that does not have the defect.<<<; Whichever of these options were chosen, the manufacturer must bear th full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.; >>>B. Does the use of a mirror attachment seem feasible an practical?<<<; RESPONSE: This agency does not offer its opinion as to the value o practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. Assuming that child restraint systems with the mirrors attached will continue to comply with the head impact protection requirements and the flammability requirements in Standard No. 213, they would not appear to pose any reasonable safety hazard to the child occupant of the rear-facing seats.; >>>C. What does the Code of Federal Regulations/NHTSA have to say abou physical dimensions for rear-facing infant carrier attachments?<<<; RESPONSE: As noted above, NHTSA has no regulations specificall applicable to any aftermarket attachment items. The only dimensional requirements applicable to rear- facing child restraint systems will provide adequate support and restraint for a child during a crash. Since your mirror attachments would not provide either support or restraint to the child during a crash, none of Standard No. 213's dimensional requirements would be applicable even if the mirrors were original equipment on a child restraint system.; >>>D. What are the other government requirements for suc attachments?<<<; RESPONSE: We are not aware of any other Federal government agency tha regulates items of motor vehicle equipment.; >>>E. How would I go about having this product tested and approved b the Federal government and approximately how long would that take?<<<; RESPONSE: By way of background, NHTSA does not use a certificatio process similar to that used by the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the product to be tested to a governmental entity and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, the manufacturer of the product conducts any necessary testing and itself certifies that the product complies with NHTSA's applicable standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' products or offer assurances of compliance by the product.; However, this distinction may not be important with respect to you mirror attachments for child restraints. As noted above, Standard No. 213 does not apply to items of aftermarket equipment for child restraint systems. Therefore, you cannot certify that your mirror attachments comply with Standard No. 213, because those attachments are not subject to Standard No. 213. You may wish to test the attachment to learn if it complies with the flammability requirements and attach it to a child restraint to determine if the mirror attachment affects the child restraint's compliance with the head impact protection requirements. Any such testing would be for your own purposes, however, and is not required by the Federal government before you sell the mirror attachments to the public.; >>>F. Would this product as described need to be approved by stat governments (as well as federal) before coming to market?<<<; RESPONSE: As explained above, the product does not have to b 'approved' by the Federal government before you can sell it to the public. Various States may have requirements concerning child restraint systems. However, section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that '(w)henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard.' Thus, any non-identical State safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 213 would be preempted by the provisions of the Safety Act, making the non-identical standard legally unenforceable.; States do have authority to enforce identical standards related to th same aspect of performance as Standard No. 213, and also have authority to regulate in areas not covered by the Federal standards. To learn more about this issue, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20036.; If you have further questions or need more information on this subject please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.