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: nht92-2.7OpenDATE: 11/24/92 FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: LAWRENCE A. BEYER -- ESQ. ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-22-92 FROM LAWRENCE A. BEYER TO Z. TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 7813) TEXT: This responds to your FAX of September 22, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with reference to your request to become a Registered Importer ("RI"). We interpret your letter as seeking an opinion on your eligibility to submit an application to become an RI under 49 CFR 592. Because of your representation of RIs, you are familiar with the record keeping mechanisms and other regulatory requirements of this agency. Your intent is to perform modifications on those Canadian vehicles which require only minor modifications, and you have a 3-car garage, tools including pneumatics, and storage space. You would have in your employ several people qualified to perform the modifications requires. You are aware that, in prmmulgating Part 592, NHTSA specificaly rejected a proposal to allow RIs to designate agents to perform conformance work, thus you would not accept vehicles requiring major modifications, but would refer those to the other RIs. Section 592.5 sets forth the requirements for registration as an RI. According to paragraph 592.5(a), "any person" may file an application. An application must contain the information specified by the subparagraphs of paragraph (a). We note no restrictions upon who is eligible to apply for RI status. We therefore see no legal impediment to your submitting an application under section 592.5. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) has the authority to grant or deny applications for RI status. Your application must, therefore, contain arguments sufficient to convince OVSC of your ability to perform the limited modifications that you contemplate. We advise you, therefore, to set out with specificity in your application the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which you have the capability to conform vehicles, and the standards for which you have not. We would like to make clear that, in the event a vehicle requires major modifications, our regulations would not allow you to bring the vehicle into partial conformance before transfering the vehicle to another RI for to complete the conformance process. An RI must certify the conformance work to NHTSA, and paragraph 592.6(e) requires the RI's certification to state that "it is the person legally responsible for bringing the vehicle into conformity." We interpret that as meaning that the certifier itself performed all the conformance work and did not resort to an agent. |
|
ID: nht92-2.8OpenDATE: 11/24/92 FROM: SHAFI J. KEISLER -- PRESIDENT, ONE MORE RUN, INC. TO: PAUL J. RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TITLE: RE: REPLACEMENT TAIL LIGHT LENS ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO SHAFI J. KEISLER (STD. 108) TEXT: My company is pursuing the manufacture of a licensed replacement tail light lens for the 1966-7 Dodge Charger. Per my conversation with Mr. Vinson today, I am formally requesting all safety standards information pertinent to the manufacture of this replacement lens. Please note that we are manufacturing the lens only (with reflex reflector) and not the entire lamp assembly. We will use only current DOT and SAE approved material to build this item. It is our goal to build this lens to meet and exceed all safety standards. Please send your formal reply to the address at the top of this letter. Thank you in advance for your help. |
|
ID: nht92-2.9OpenDATE: 11/24/92 FROM: JAY C. TOWNLEY -- VT JAY TOWNLEY & ASSOCIATES TO: PAUL J. RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA COPYEE: YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION USA TITLE: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION CONCERNING CLASSIFICATION OF PEDAL ASSISTED BICYCLE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-16-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO J. C. TOWNLEY (A40; PART 571) TEXT: NOTE: This entire submission is Business Confidential. I am a consultant working in the international bicycle industry, and I am making this request for an Advisory Opinion on behalf of my Client, Yamaha Motor Corporation USA. Enclosed as Exhibit I you will find photographs of three (3) prototype Pedal Assisted Bicycles. The first prototype is a shaft drive Commuter, or City Bicycle. The second is a shaft drive All Terrain Bicycle, and the third is a chain drive All Terrain Bicycle. The Product Definition we are using for marketing plan development is: A bicycle equipped with a battery powered pedal assist system that engages when the system senses "kicking" torque between 5 Kg and 50 Kg, such as when the bicycle is starting from a stop, or climbing hills. Exhibit II is the Pedal Assisted Bicycle System Abstract and a diagram explaining the system as installed in the second, shaft drive All Terrain Bicycle prototype pictured in Exhibit I. You will note that the electric motor power output is in proportion to the torque input signal. Also, the system is designed to disengage when: Speed is less than 1.24 MPH (2 Km/h), or more than 15.0 MPH (24 Km/h). Torque at the pedals is less than 11 lbs (5 Kg), or more than 110 lbs (50 Kg). The braking system is activated. Accordingly, the pedal assist feature is intended to provide quicker and therefore safer standing starts in traffic, take the extra effort out of climbing hills, and keep up the pace when a rider becomes fatigued while commuting, running an errand or exercising. The pedal assist feature cannot be engaged unless the bicycle rider is actively pedaling, and it will "assist" the rider only in direct proportion to the torque the rider inputs to the pedals. Based on all of the above, we believe that the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle does not fall within the current definitions of "Motor Vehicle", "Motor Cycle" or "Motor-Driven Cycle". FORMAL REQUEST 1. We request an advisory opinion that the Yahama Pedal Assisted Bicycle is not a "motor vehicle", or "motor driven cycle" within the meaning of the Safety Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. Should you be of the opinion that such product is a "motor vehicle" we would like to explore the possibilities to obtain appropriate exemptions from the potentially applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 2. We additionally request a meeting with you and your staff to review and demonstrate the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle at the earliest possible date. |
|
ID: nht92-3.1OpenDATE: October 28, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Spencer A. Darby -- Vice President, Engineering, Sate-lite Manufacturing Co. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/17/92 from Spencer A. Darby to Legal Counsel - FMVSS 125, NHTSA (OCC-7675) TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about whether a warning device would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR S571.125). You were specifically concerned about the implications of adding a battery operated flashing light to a warning device that otherwise complies with the Standard. You stated that placing flashing lights between the reflex reflectors would enhance the device's conspicuity at night. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our require- ments to you. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 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 No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations. As your letter states, Standard No. 125 applies to "devices, without self- contained energy sources that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (emphasis added; see section S3) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that the phrase "self-contained energy sources" includes such things as battery powered lights. Accordingly, a warning device to which a battery operated flashing light was added would not be subject to Standard No. 125. You also asked whether a vehicle required to have three "125 warning triangles" would be required to have three non-lighted complying triangles set out as well. Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate the use of warning devices. I am forwarding your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate some motor vehicle operators and vehicle operations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht92-3.10OpenDATE: October 22, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Paul D. Barron -- Professional Technologies International Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/25/92 from Paul D. Barron to Paul Jackson Rice and Marvin Shaw (OCC-7685) TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about this agency's requirements that are applicable to your product, a "UV Heat Shield." Your sales literature explains that this product is a UV protective window film that permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front Windshield. You state that the UV Heat Shield blocks ultra-violet radiation from entering the vehicle's occupant compartment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not however approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (e.g., 70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install your window film over the glazing, that subsequent manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 with the window film installed. I note that while you state that your window film permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front windshield, it is the windshield with your product installed that would be required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any applicable safety standard. This provision means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying installation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. If you are interested in further information on the provisions on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. In addition, under the Safety Act, the UV Heat Shield would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht92-3.11OpenDATE: October 21, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Jerry Beck TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/25/92 from Jerry Beck to Mr. Rice (OCC-7684) TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information about how this agency's regulations would apply to the product you are developing. While you initially requested that the agency keep your inquiry confidential, you removed this request for confidentiality in a September 18, 1992 letter to Marvin Shaw of my staff. You described your product as a reflective decal that would be placed on the backside of a motor vehicle's rear view mirror and on its rear bumper. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "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 of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to your reflective decals, it appears that your product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of your letter, it appears that a substantial portion of your device's expected use will be during the operation of a motor vehicle. In addition, it appears that your product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. While your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, this agency has not issued any standards setting forth performance requirements for such a device. Nevertheless, 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 Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, 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. You should be aware that, as a manufacturer of an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht92-3.12OpenDATE: October 21, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Kevin R. Boyne -- Chief Engineer, Dynamics and Durability Engineering, Transportation Research Center Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/92 from Kevin R. Boyne to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7605) TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting a clarification of the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. That section sets forth new requirements relating to key removal, which became effective on September 1, 1992. Your letter asks whether a vehicle which operates in the following manner would meet the requirements: Initial Condition - Engine running and shift lever positioned in "drive". Action - The operator depresses the thumb button on the left side of the shift lever and moves the shift lever to the "park" position. Point of Concern - As long as the thumb button is held in the depressed position, the ignition key can be rotated to the lock position and removed. Still holding the thumb button, the shift lever can later be moved to any position. Removal of the key will only occur in the "park" position. As discussed below, it is our opinion that a system which operates in the manner you described would comply with S4.2.1 of the standard for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, but not for vehicles manufactured after that time. This assumes, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, that steering is prevented after removal of the key. It also assumes that the system does not otherwise permit removal of the key when the transmission is not locked in park. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 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 or equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states: Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. The system which you describe appears to permit removal of the key in a situation when both the transmission and transmission shift lever are not locked in "park" and when they do not become locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. This conclusion follows from the fact that, following the removal of the key, the shift lever can be moved to any position. Therefore, the system you describe would not comply with S4.2.1 unless one of the exceptions in section S4.2.2(a) and (b) apply. The exception set forth in S4.2.2(a) only applies in the event of electrical failure and is therefore not relevant to the system you describe. S4.2.2(b) of Standard No. 114 reads as follows: (b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed. (2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. NHTSA included this second exception to allow for a manual override of the transmission shift lock so that a disabled vehicle could be moved. The requirement that such devices either be operable by the key or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface originally had an effective date of September 1, 1992. However, after considering petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA decided to provide an additional year's leadtime, noting that this would lessen the impacts associated with such redesign of the emergency override buttons of a number of systems. While the agency was primarily concerned about emergency override buttons in drafting S4.2.2(b), it is our opinion that the language in (b)(1) is sufficiently broad to include the thumb button on a transmission shift lever itself, i.e., the button can be considered a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift, lever from "park" after the removal of the key. Therefore, assuming that steering is prevented after the removal of the key, the system you describe would come within the exception provided in S4.2.2(b)(1). Effective September 1, 1993, of course, such a device must also meet the requirements set forth in S4.2.2(b)(2) in order to come within this exception to S4.2.1. The system you describe would not fall within the exception at that time. The thumb button is not "the key, as defined in S3." In addition, the thumb button is not "covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool." Therefore, based on the information you have provided, the system would not comply with S4.2.1 for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht92-3.13OpenDATE: 10/21/92 FROM: CHESTER I. NIELSEN III -- VICE PRESIDENT, SALES, WESTBAR CORPORATION TO: WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR. -- CHIEF COUNCIL, DOT ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-1-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO CHESTER I. NIELSEN, III (A40; STD. 108) TEXT: We are writing for classification and possible further explanation of S5.3.1.1.1. in FMVSS 108. Our request involves mounting locations of clearance lamps on boat trailers which are 80 inches or more in width. In 1989, S5.1.1.9. addressed one aspect relating to the mounting location for clearance lamps on boat trailers. This paragraph allows boat trailer builders a longitudinal variance from the strictest standard whereby the clearance lamps no longer have to be at the highest point nor rearward location on a boat trailer, when design of the trailer does not allow it in effort to protect the function of the lamp from damage during normal usage. Several of our personnel, and several of the staff from one of our major trade organizations, believe there was an additional interpretation from the DOT. This additional interpretation, also directed at boat trailers, would allow a boat trailer manufacturer to draw an imaginary line through the (outboard) tire on each side of his trailer and then mount his red and amber clearance lights outside of these lines. The rationale was to provide desired width identification while providing protection of the light during normal use. A sketch below depicts the most inboard allowable mounting locations should this interpretation be confirmed by your office. (GRAPHIC OMITTED.) 1 = most inboard allowable mounting location for amber clearance lamps. 2 = most inboard allowable mounting location for red clearance lamps. Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to receiving your timely response to our request for a written confirmation of this mounting location interpretation. |
|
ID: nht92-3.14OpenDATE: October 20, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Mindy Lang -- Division Manager, Huntleigh Transportation Services, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/12/92 from Mindy Lang to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-7763) TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 12, 1992, requesting information on regulations concerning bus conversions. Your company converts the interior of buses by installing such materials as carpets, wall coverings, and blinds. In particular you asked for information on regulations concerning the attachment of seats to vehicles and the material used for the construction of seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1181 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish one safety standard relevant to seating, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. There is one other safety standard that could be affected by the work your company performs. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, including buses. If your company converts previously certified buses, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as: A person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified ... other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale .... If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR S567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. The label must also state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed. Your company would not be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR S567.7 if the modifications involve only readily attachable components. However, the modifications would still be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. 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 . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. I hope you find this information helpful. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.
|
|
ID: nht88-1.30OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/10/88 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Ms. Laura C. Boniske TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Ms. Laura C. Boniske 2928 Coconut Grove Drive Coral Gables, FL 33134 This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, as they apply to "materials used in the manufacture of an aftermarket product which will be utilized in the occupant compartment of a vehicle." In an October 27, 1987 telephone convers ation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you mentioned in particular an item of equipment consisting of a pad for cushioning safety belts. Generally speaking, items of motor vehicle equipment are not covered by Standard No. 302. Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard and as such applies to completed vehicles. No vehicle can be manufactured unless the materials used in it comply with the requirements of the standard. The general rule is that aftermarket products may be added to v ehicles, even if the addition of those products causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, without violating the requirements of Federal law. This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repa ir 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 . . ."NHTSA would consider t he installation of safety belt pads that do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 as "rendering inoperative" an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in accordance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed a safety belt pad which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating sec tion 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. We note also that, since safety belts are safety devices installed in accordance with Safety Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, those commercial businesses would be prohib ited from installing the safety belt pad if its installation would impair the effective operation of the belts. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of S108. The prohibitions of S108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design in his or her vehicle. Therefore, aftermarket safety belt pads may be sold to a vehicle owner for installation in his or her vehicle regardle ss of whether the pad complies with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. There are two factors which ought to be considered by the manufacturers of safety belt pads which do not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. First is the possibilities of liability under State and common law if those pad s were to catch fire in a situation where a pad complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, or if those pads burn much more rapidly than pads that comply with Standard No. 302. Second is the possibility of a finding of a safety-related de fect in your products. Sections 151-154 of the Safety Act require that, when an item or motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser. In any event, we urge you to ensure that your products would not negatively affect the safety provided by the underlying belt assembly. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure LAURA CROVO BONISKE 2928 Coconut Grove Drive Coral Gables, Florida 33134 July 13, 1987 Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel, NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington D.C. 20590 Dear Ms. Jones:
Mr. Robert Williams suggested that I contact you regarding a legal interpretation as to Standard 302. Specifically, I need to know whether or not materials used in the manufacture of an aftermarket product which will be utilized in the occupant compartme nt of a vehicle are required by law to be fire retardant. The product will be detachable from the vehicle and when in use, a portion of the product will touch the body of the passenger or operator of the vehicle. The favor of an early reply will be most appreciated. Yours very truly, Laura Crovo Boniske LCB:jb |
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.