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: 002721cmcOpenMr. Lane Francis Dear Mr. Francis: This responds to your e-mail letter dated April 23, 2003, and phone conversations with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, in which you ask if a diesel-powered grain vacuum (the Grain Vac) manufactured by your company would be classified as a "motor vehicle." As explained below, based on the information you provided us, we would not consider the Grain Vac a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our regulations. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations. Title 49 U. S. Code (U.S.C) Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as: [A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. In your letter you stated that the Grain Vac is manufactured primarily for use in agricultural operations, and that it "will occasionally be towed on highways and roads between its actual operation at agricultural venues." You described the Grain Vac as being permanently mounted to an undercarriage, "which is essentially a guarded hollow frame." Based on the information you provided, including the pictures enclosed with your letter, it is our opinion that the Grain Vac is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. The Grain Vac is manufactured primarily for agricultural operations, and is intended for use on public roadways only to move between job sites. Contrast this with a grain trailer, which may be used to transport grain to market. Because the Grain Vac is not a Motor vehicle, it is not subject to any of our regulations including the FMVSSs. While our initial determination is that the Grain Vac is not a "motor vehicle" for purposes of our regulations, we may revisit this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant further examination. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:VSA |
2003 |
ID: nht93-8.16OpenDATE: November 16, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/29/93 from Dennis G. Moore to John Womack TEXT: We have received Your letter of September 29, 1993, with reference to the location requirements of Standard No. 108 for identification (i.d.) lamps. Table II of the standard in pertinent part specifies the following location for i.d. lamps: "On the rear - 3 lamps as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline...." You reference at least two instances in the past 20 years or longer in which "NHTSA has allowed the slight misalignment of I.D. lights because of 'Practical' circumstances," and have asked for copies of these interpretations. We are unaware of these interpretations. In their absence, you have asked for an interpretation of the phrase "at the same height" that would permit the mounting height of the center lamp to deviate slightly from the height of the two lamps that flank it, as shown in your letter. You depict two other possible configurations in which the three lamps are mounted at identical heights. In one configuration, the lower edges of the outboard lamps hang below the frame "making them vulnerable to being damaged or knocked off" in your opinion. In the second configuration, the lamps are raised and protected, but the center lamp is somewhat obscured by the "typical roller or protective pad." You deem these configurations undesirable for safety reasons. The question to be answered is whether the configuration you prefer is "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle at the same height" (note the absence of a comma between "vehicle" and "at"). The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer. Unless it is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. In the absence of a superstructure, the frame location may be regarded as being "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle..." Because "at the same height" is part of the same phrase, practicability also governs placement of the lamps at the same height. A manufacturer may determine that, for the sake of practicability, i.d. lamps may be mounted at a height sufficient to protect them from breakage (the outboard lamps) and to ensure compliance with photometric requirements (the center lamp). The configuration you depict is sufficiently close to the literal reading of the phrase "at the same height" that NHTSA would not question the manufacturer's determination of practicability with respect to the mounting height of the center i.d. lamp. |
|
ID: 9182Open Mr. Dennis G. Moore Dear Mr. Moore: We have received your letter of September 29, 1993, with reference to the location requirements of Standard No. 108 for identification (i.d.) lamps. Table II of the standard in pertinent part specifies the following location for i.d. lamps: "On the rear - 3 lamps as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline . . . ." You reference at least two instances in the past 20 years or longer in which "NHTSA has allowed the slight misalignment of I.D. lights because of `Practical' circumstances," and have asked for copies of these interpretations. We are unaware of these interpretations. In their absence, you have asked for an interpretation of the phrase "at the same height" that would permit the mounting height of the center lamp to deviate slightly from the height of the two lamps that flank it, as shown in your letter. You depict two other possible configurations in which the three lamps are mounted at identical heights. In one configuration, the lower edges of the outboard lamps hang below the frame "making them vulnerable to being damaged or knocked off" in your opinion. In the second configuration, the lamps are raised and protected, but the center lamp is somewhat obscured by the "typical roller or protective pad." You deem these configurations undesirable for safety reasons. The question to be answered is whether the configuration you prefer is "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle at the same height" (note the absence of a comma between "vehicle" and "at"). The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer. Unless it is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. In the absence of a superstructure, the frame location may be regarded as being "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. . . ." Because "at the same height" is part of the same phrase, practicability also governs placement of the lamps at the same height. A manufacturer may determine that, for the sake of practicability, i.d. lamps may be mounted at a height sufficient to protect them from breakage (the outboard lamps) and to ensure compliance with photometric requirements (the center lamp). The configuration you depict is sufficiently close to the literal reading of the phrase "at the same height" that NHTSA would not question the manufacturer's determination of practicability with respect to the mounting height of the center i.d. lamp. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:11/16/93 |
1993 |
ID: 06-007783rlsOpenWestport Power Inc. 1691 West 75th Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V6P 6P2 Dear Mr. Houle: This responds to your email requesting our interpretation of whether an accumulator vessel is regulated under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity (FMVSS No. 304). Specifically, you ask if S3 (Application) of Standard No. 304 covered your implementation of [a] small accumulator vessel as a pressure damping device and not a storage device. Based on the information you have provided, we conclude that this tank is subject to FMVSS No. 304. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. In your email, you described a fuel system consisting of one or more liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage vessels with internally mounted pumps and vaporizers. You said that the LNG system compresses and vaporizes the LNG and delivers compressed natural gas (CNG) to another system that delivers CNG to the engine-mounted fuel system. Your question was whether a 9-liter Type 3 vessel would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 304 if its purpose was as an accumulator to provide additional system volume to compensate for pump pressure fluctuations. Standard No. 304 specifies requirements for the integrity of CNG motor vehicle fuel containers. As defined in S4 of Standard No. 304, CNG fuel container means a container designed to store CNG as motor fuel on-board a motor vehicle. You state that The accumulator is not intended to provide storage capacity but is purely there to dampen pressure pulsations. Despite your assertion, it appears from your description and schematics of the accumulator vessel that the container in question could and most likely does store CNG. Based on your schematics, NHTSA believes that the tank falls within the category of vessels that FMVSS No. 304 is meant to regulate. Your email explained that the accumulator tank maintains pressure to the engine for combustion: that suggests to NHTSA that the tank is never empty of CNG, and may contain a considerable amount of CNG at any given time depending on how the fuel system is running. Simply because you assert that the additional system volume provided by the tank is only for dampening pressure fluctuations does not remove the tank from being subject to FMVSS No. 304s requirements. The tank still would contain CNG as motor fuel, and the test requirements of FMVSS No. 304 are designed to ensure a basic level of safety for such tanks. For your additional information, we also note that the vehicle in which your vessel is installed could be subject to Standard No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles, if it is a school bus or has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. FMVSS No. 303 applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and to all school buses that use CNG as a motor fuel. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:304 d.4/25/07 |
2007 |
ID: nht80-1.28OpenDATE: 03/10/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: General Motors Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: March 10, 1980 Copies to: RAR,RS,RLL,JGB,DPD,MRB,CTT,RAW, WLW,MLT,DAL,RFH,WCC,CRS,GPT,RGS Mr. David Martin, Director Director, Enviromenental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren, Michigan 48090 Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your recent request for an interpretation of the term, "capacity", as used in Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard provides that "the fuel tank is filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard solvent...." "You ask whether "capacity" should include the vapor volume in the air dome plus the volume of the fuel filler pipe when filling a fuel tank for compliance purposes. (Total tank volume = usable capacity + unusable capacity + vapor volume + fluid in filler pipe.) The vapor volume can be filled with solvent if the solvent is added very slowly to force the air vapors out of the dome. This has been done in past compliance testing by the agency. Upon reconsideration, however, it is our opinion that the term, "capacity", should not be interpreted to include the vapor volume in the air dome, since fuel tanks are never filled to this level by vehicle users. Fuel tanks are designed to include an area for fuel vapor and pressure build-up. Vehicle users never fill their tanks so slowly that this area is displaced with fuel. Therefore, it would be an unrealistic test to require manufacturers to fill tanks in this fashion. Apparently, fuel is actually squeezed out of the filler pipe during compliance testing if the tank is filled to this absolute level. This would not seem to be an accurate test of fuel tank integrity, since it is leaks or punctures in the tank itself that generally cause fuel loss in real-world crashes.
In consideration of these facts, the agency interprets "capacity" to mean "usuable capacity", as used in the vehicle manufacturer's Part I submission to the EPA, plus "unusable capacity" (i.e.. the volume of fuel left in the tank when the engine fuel pump sucks air). It should be emphasized that the "usable capacity" should be determined only after the tank has been filled to its "unusable capacity". In other words, when testing a tank that has never been filled, the unusable, residual fuel level should be reached before the "usable capacity" is added to the tank. If this is not done, the actual volume of fuel in the tank will be somewhat below the "usable fuel capacity. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 09-000571.Yamazaki.aug10OpenYoshinao Yamazaki, Technical Manager Industrial/Packaging MKT Tape Technical Dept. Tape and Adhesive Division Technical Sumitomo 3M Limited 3-8-8, Minami Hashimoto, Sagamihara-shi Kanagawa 229-1185, Japan Dear Mr. Yamazaki: This letter responds to your e-mail asking questions regarding compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). You stated that your company has been developing a new laser marking label for motor vehicles. You stated that the label has two features to prevent forgery: (1) It is made of a brittle film that makes it impossible to remove the label without blemishing or scratching it, and (2) the logo of the car company appears on the label to authenticate the brand. You then ask three questions. First, you ask whether this label meets the requirements of Part 541. Second, you ask if there are any specifications for evaluating this type of label. Third, you ask whether three types of logos would satisfy the labeling requirement. The three types of logos you describe include a logo that is printed on the labels surface and is covered with a protective transparent top layer, a logo that is indented in the transparent top layer, and a logo that is imbedded in the transparent top layer. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. NHTSA does not provide approvals or endorsements of specific labels. Our opinion is based on the facts provided in your e-mail, which have been outlined above, and on the analysis presented below. By way of background, Part 541 requires that certain passenger motor vehicles have identifying numbers affixed or inscribed on certain specified parts. See 541.5(a). Part 541 also sets forth a number of labeling requirements for affixing the identifying number to a part. See 541.5(d) and (d)(1). These requirements are also generally applicable to the labeling of replacement parts. See 541.6(a). Pertinent to your inquiry, section 541.5(d)(1)(v)-(viii) requires: (v) Removal of the label must (A) Cause the label to self-destruct by tearing or rendering the number on the label illegible, and (B) Discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present. (vi) Alteration of the number on the label must leave traces of the original number or otherwise visibly alter the appearance of the label material. (vii) The label and the number shall be resistant to counterfeiting. (viii) The logo or some other unique identifier of the vehicle manufacturer must be placed in the material of the label in a manner such that alteration or removal of the logo visibly alters the appearance of the label. In response to your first inquiry regarding whether your new laser marking label satisfies the requirements of Part 541, our general answer is that we do not provide approvals of motor vehicle equipment. However, your description of the fragility of the label appears to indicate that it would comply with the requirements in section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(A) regarding destruction of the label. Your description provides no information regarding the requirements in section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) regarding whether removal of the label discernibly alters the appearance of the area of the part where the label was affixed and section 541.5(d)(1)(vi) regarding whether alteration of the label leaves traces of the original number or otherwise visibly alters the appearance of the label. Finally, although you claim that the fragility of the label makes it resistant to reuse for counterfeiting, section 541.5(d)(1)(vii), the provision concerning counterfeiting, addresses more than the ability to reuse the label. Under section 541.5(d)(1)(vii), the label must also be designed in a manner that makes it extremely difficult for an unauthorized person to systematically duplicate it. In response to your second inquiry, all of the specifications for evaluating these type of labels appear in Part 541, particularly in section 541.5(d). We have stated that these general criteria are sufficient to alert label manufacturers what is required. See 50 FR 43174 (Oct. 24, 1985). In response to your third inquiry regarding the placement of the logo on the label, again we note that we do not provide approvals of motor vehicle equipment. Moreover, section 541.5(d)(1)(viii) does not set forth any requirements regarding the manner in which the logo must be placed in the material of the label. As long as the logo is placed in the material of the label in such a manner that alteration or removal of the logo would visibly alter the appearance of the label, it does not matter how the logo is placed in the material. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 8/18/09 |
2009 |
ID: 1982-2.5OpenDATE: 04/15/82 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Riken America, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your recent letter inquiring whether it would be permissible for your company to label your tires in both the European metric size and the domestic P-metric size. Dual markings of sizes in the manner you have described are specifically prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109). Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." A European metric size and its comparable domestic P-metric size are assigned different maximum load carrying capacities and different recommended maximum inflation pressures, because different formulae are used to calculate the load carrying capacities of the tires at the different inflation pressures. Because of the different load carrying capacities and recommended inflation pressures, substituting a European metric tire for a P-metric tire might cause the European metric tire to be unsafely overloaded. Dual markings could lead to such substitutions. The dual-size markings you have requested were explicitly prohibited when this agency amended the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been expressly repeated in subsequent amendments addressing the question of tire labeling under the standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974, and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. The agency's reasoning is that these dual size markings are a representation by the manufacturer that a particular tire meets all requirements of Standard No. 109 for both listed sizes, which is not true. In fact, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars, i.e., by representing that the manufacturer's tire is an appropriate replacement for either European metric or P-metric tires. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The only purpose of that label is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the consumer's automobile. Sincerely, ATTACH. February 16, 1982 Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 Dear Sir: Riken America, Inc. is the importer of Riken Brand Automobile Tires into the United States. We, and the manufacturer, Okamoto Riken Gomu Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, are considering marking our "82 Series" of steel-belted radial tires with both the European (ETRTO) metric size and the new P-metric size. The line is currently using the European (ETRTO) metric sizes only. The engineering department at Okamoto Riken Gomu Co., Ltd. has investigated the possibility of dual-marking our line and has determined that the tire specifications for the European (ETRTO) metric sizes are within the standard specifications established for the P-metric sizes as follows: Proposed P-Metric Riken ETRTO Size "Dual-Marked" Size Equivalent 155SR12 P155/80R12 155SR13 P155/80R13 165SR13 P165/80R13 165SR14 P165/80R14 165SR15 P165/80R15
Additionally, we would like to add the following sizes to our line: Proposed P-Metric Riken ETRTO Size "Dual-Marked" Size Equivalent 175SR13 P175/80R13 185SR13 P185/80R13 175SR14 P175/80R14
Please advise us if the dual markings upon the tires, assuming the specifications are proper for the P-metric sizes, would be acceptable under FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. applicable regulations. Your immediate reply would be greatly appreciated as we would like to start this program very soon. Very truly yours, RIKEN AMERICA, INC.; Gary M. Ceazan -- Vice President cc: B. Ceazan; M. Levitt; Y. Okamoto
|
|
ID: nht92-9.30OpenDATE: February 3, 1992 FROM: Kenneth R. Brownstein -- Senior Counsel, PACCAR Inc., Law Department TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Re: Request for Clarification of 571.120 - Standard 120 ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Kenneth R. Brownstein (A39; Std. 120) TEXT: PACCAR Inc, a manufacturer of Kenworth and Peterbilt vehicles, hereby submits a request for clarification of S571.120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. S5.1.3 of 571.120 states: "In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol." The standard clearly allows purchasers of vehicles to supply the vehicle manufacturer with retread tires for installation on the new vehicle. The intent of the standard appears to be to allow the purchaser to choose whether or not the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure they have knowledge of this fact. PACCAR manufactures a customized vehicle, allowing retail customers to specify particular components including tires for the vehicle. PACCAR believes that the intent of the standard would be met if a customer specifically orders retreads for his vehicle and the vehicle manufacturer supplied them rather than the purchaser. It is requested that PACCAR be permitted to install, at the specific request of the buyer, retread tires. The tires installed would comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol. By allowing PACCAR to buy the tires, the process would be more efficient and provide the truck owner an advantage in not having to make a separate purchase, eliminating duplicate paperwork. It would also eliminate extra shipping and handling of the tires. Your response to this request is respectfully requested. |
|
ID: 1982-3.32OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/08/82 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Patrick J. Tyler; Englander TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation TEXT: Mr. Patrick J. Tyler Englander 3429 West 47th Street Chicago, Illinois 60632 Dear Mr. Tyler: This responds to your September 8, 1982, letter asking whether a mattress that you manufacture for use in a truck cab would be required to comply with Standard No. 302. Flammability of Interior Materials. Standard No. 302 lists the components that are covered by the standard. That list states that mattress covers must comply with the standard's requirements. The agency has interpreted the mattress cover language to mean both mattress covers and the permanent mattress ticking. Accordingly, your mattress to the extent that it is designed for use in new vehicles must comply with the requirements. You should be aware that nothing prohibits a vehicle owner from purchasing noncomplying equipment as replacement equipment if he so chooses. You did not indicate whether your operation is for new vehicles or replacement equipment. In the instance of noncomplying replacement equipment, no manufacturer, repair business, or distributor could install such noncomplying equipment. The installation would have to be made by the vehicle owner himself. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 1982-2.10OpenDATE: 04/30/82 EST FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO: J. F. WALKUP -- PROJECT ANALYST, RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER-REEVES BROTHERS, INC. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: APRIL 6, 1982 LETTER FROM WALKUP TO TILTON IS ATTACHED TEXT: This responds to your April 6, 1982, letter asking whether the agency's Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to after-market equipment. The answer to your question is no. 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 standard does not apply, however, to items of equipment in the after market. You should be aware that while you would not be prohibited from manufacturing after-market equipment that does not comply with the standard, a manufacturer, repair business or dealer would be prohibited from installing such noncomplying equipment if the installation would have the effect of rendering inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standard. Nothing prevents a vehicle owner, however, from installing noncomplying equipment in his own vehicle. I trust that this responds to your question. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. |
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.