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: Copy of 2772 cmc cloth labelOpenMs. Patricia McCluney 310 West Elm Avenue, Effingham, IL 62401 Dear Ms. McCluney: This responds to your letter in which you ask about the manufacture and sale of an aftermarket product that would cover the warning sticker on a vehicle sun visor. As explained below, the regulations and standards administered by this agency would not prohibit the manufacture and sale of such a product. However, also as explained below, Federal law limits the parties that would be able to install a product as you have described. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided. In your letter you asked whether it is legal to manufacture and sell an aftermarket adhesive backed cloth product that would cover the warning label on a vehicle sun visor. You also stated that the product would be removable. Currently, no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applies to your product. Conversely, the agency has established requirements for warning labels on vehicle sun visors. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, requires that new vehicles be equipped with labels on the sun visors, which among other things, warn of the danger of placing child occupants in the front seat (S4.5.1(b)). Additionally, FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials, establishes performance requirements for sun visors. Generally, these standards apply only to vehicles up to the point of first retail sale. Following the first retail sale of a vehicle, a manufacturer or motor vehicle repair business is prohibited from making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122; make inoperative prohibition). This prohibition includes removing or obscuring the warning labels required under FMVSS No. 208. Further, this prohibition would apply if your product degraded the flammability performance of the visor. The make inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications made to a vehicle by a vehicles owner. As such, an individual would not be prohibited from installing a product as you described which obscures an FMVSS No. 208 warning label. We note however, that the sun visor warning label is intended to be a permanent label. The agency encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. While no FMVSS currently applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event the manufacturer of your product or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. You may wish to consult with a private attorney concerning State law implications of your product, including possible tort liability implications. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d.6/19/06 |
2006 |
ID: Copy of Robert BabcockOpenRobert Babcock, Senior Manager Regulation and Certification Division Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc. 6800 Geddes Road Superior Township, MI 48198 Dear Mr. Babcock: This responds to your November 26, 2008 letter, as well as an earlier letter from Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc., concerning a petition you submitted requesting an exemption from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, for the Kia Amanti beginning with the 2009 model year. Under 49 CFR Part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may, for each model year, petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for an exemption of one vehicle line from the requirements of the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Because our agency had already granted a petition submitted by Hyundai-Kia American Technical Center, Inc. (HATCI) for the 2009 Hyundai Genesis, NHTSA staff informally advised HATCI that it appeared to be ineligible for a second exemption for the same model year. You asked us to reconsider this position. This letter provides our response. As discussed below, based on available information, we believe that Hyundai and Kia are eligible as separate manufacturers for parts marking exemptions. We have previously addressed the issue of how related companies are treated for purposes of parts marking exemptions in an interpretation to Patrick M. Raher, Esq., dated July 12, 2007. We explained: The definition of manufacturer for the theft prevention standard program is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 32101(5), and reads as follows: manufacturer means a person (A) manufacturing or assembling passenger motor vehicles or passenger motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. In considering whether related companies are separately eligible for parts marking exemptions, we believe it is appropriate to consider two issues. First, we consider whether the companies are structured such that they can be considered separate persons under the statutory definition. Second, assuming the answer is yes, we look beyond the corporate structure and consider whether the companies are operationally independent from each other. It is necessary to consider this since a manufacturer could be highly integrated in operation but, for variety reasons, use multiple corporations. Also, we separately consider, with respect to the vehicles for which an exemption is sought, whether the vehicles can be considered to have more than one manufacturer and, if so, whether that would affect eligibility for the requested exemption. We note that the statutory provision does not indicate that a person is a manufacturer of a vehicle solely by virtue of ownership or control of another person that is a manufacturer. In your letter arguing that Kia Motors Corporation (KMC) and Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) should be considered separately eligible for parts marking exemptions, you provided the following explanation of the relationship between KMC, HMC, and HATCI: KMC is an independent original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of passenger automobiles and light trucks. HMC is also an independent OEM of passenger automobiles and light trucks. HATCI is a Michigan based corporation headquartered and incorporated in the State of Michigan, USA with additional offices and facilities in the State of California. HATCI is an authorized representative of both HMC and KMC (the Companies), doing business pursuant to independent contracts with both Companies. An analogy of HATCIs relationship with HMC and KMC would be that of a law firm representing two separate clients that produce similar products. HATCI performs engineering and design services for both Companies. Such activities are performed on behalf of, and independently for, the Companies. HATCIs financial structure provides for independent budgeting, billing, and operational financing of the activities performed for each of the Companies. The Companies are separately capitalized and operate independently and autonomously; having separate management, administrative and operational structures, financing, marketing, product planning and human resources organizations. The Companies produce, market, and sell separate vehicles, parts, and services. While some products (individual models) are based on core components including engines, transmissions, body structures, and components, these core products are sourced independently and each product is independently designed, engineered, tested, calibrated, and manufactured. Two exceptions exist regarding these matters. The Hyundai Entourage is produced for HMC under contract by KMC, and is a functional duplicate of the Kia Sedona with the exception of basic calibration and tuning. However, the Entourage is produced for HMC under contract by KMC, and is marketed, sold, and serviced independently by HMC. There are contractual agreements between HMC and KMC making HMC responsible for all aftermarket issues regarding the Entourage including any warranty and recall responsibilities. The other exception to this arrangement relates to the Research and Development (R&D) function of the Companies. While each company maintains separate management, financial, and operational departments, many of the R&D functions are performed by a unified R&D Group with its own President and Administrative offices. As a practical matter, this group operates as an independent contractor performing functions related to research, development, and testing utilizing highly-capitalized equipment and facilities to ensure appropriate economy. While performed by a unified group, these operations and functions are separately financed and invoiced for each company. Based on this information, you stated that it is HATCIs contention that both HMC and KMC should be considered and treated as separate companies for the purposes of the consideration of the exemption qualifications of 49 CFR Part 541, and that it be understood that HATCI is merely operating as the authorized representative of KMC regarding this matter. As indicated above, in considering whether related companies are separately eligible for parts marking exemptions, we believe it is appropriate to consider two issues. First, we consider whether the companies are structured such that they can be considered separate persons under the statutory definition. In considering this question, we consider the structuring of the companies both in the United States and abroad. In a December 19, 2007 letter on this subject, signed by Jeffrey R. Smith, HATCI provided the following information concerning the corporate structure of Hyundai and Kia in Korea: Hyundai Motor America is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company of the Republic of Korea. Kia Motors America is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kia Motors Corporation of the Republic of Korea. Hyundai Motor Company owns less than forty percent of Kia Motors Corporation stock in the Republic of Korea. Based on the information provided by you and by Jeffrey R. Smith, we believe the companies are structured such that they can be considered separate persons under the statutory definition. As indicated above, in situations where companies can be considered separate persons under the statutory definition, we look beyond the corporate structure and consider whether the companies are operationally independent from each other. We believe it is necessary to consider this since a manufacturer could be highly integrated in operation but, for variety reasons, use multiple corporations. We note that the maintenance of separate brand identities and distribution systems does not by itself indicate operational independence. We believe the issue of whether Hyundai and Kia are operationally independent under this test is a close case. The information provided in your letter indicates that the corporate structure of HMC and KMC have been formed to provide for operational independence in the vast majority of areas. On the other hand, Hyundai and Kia are part of the same automotive group in Korea: the Hyundai-Kia Automotive Group. Moreover, HATCI is also part of the Hyundai-Kia Automotive Group and provides services for both Hyundai and Kia in North America. After considering the available information in the specific context of eligibility for parts marking exemptions, we have concluded that there is sufficient separation between Hyundia and Kia in operations to treat them as two separate manufacturers. Finally, as indicated above, we separately consider, with respect to the vehicles for which an exemption is sought, whether the vehicles can be considered to have more than one manufacturer and, if so, whether that would affect eligibility for the requested exemption. However, based on the information you provided, this does not appear to be a relevant consideration for this requested exemption. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Kia is separately eligible for a theft exemption for the Amanti, without regard to Hyundais petition for an exemption for the Genesis. The agency will therefore process your petition for the Kia Amanti. We note that the analysis presented in this letter is limited to eligibility for theft exemptions. Before deciding whether the analysis would apply in other contexts, we would want to carefully evaluate the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and purposes. If you have questions about this or related issues, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:543 d.7/24/09
|
2009 |
ID: Cormier.ajdOpenSteven M. Cormier, Esquire
Dear Mr. Cormier: This is in reply to your letter dated January 22, 2004 seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 579, Reporting of Information and Communications About Potential Defects. You seek a clarification on the issue of whether to report an incident involving a death identified in a claim pursuant to 49 CFR 579.27. You describe KME Fire Apparatus (KME) as a manufacturer of less than 500 vehicles per year, and your website indicates that you are a custom manufacturer of fire fighting vehicles. You also state that KME installs certain components or systems on vehicles that are directly related to the vehicles use as firefighting equipment. You seek an interpretation of the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) rule as applied to a particular type of claim. By way of example, you note that your products typically have a fire pump that is used by fire fighters to discharge water through a hose or other device with a nozzle to fight a fire. You state that a defect in such a device could potentially give rise to a claim for injury or death that is wholly unrelated to the safety of vehicle. To clarify, you provided an example that a claim may allege that a failure of the pump resulted in the death of a person in a building or car fire, where the alleged defect did not, itself, cause the fire. You state that it is your understanding that such a claim would not be reportable under the EWR rule. We can understand how you could reach the conclusion that you reached. However, in enacting the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act, the Congress was concerned that NHTSA did not have the full range of information that was necessary to understand as soon as necessary that there potentially were defects in certain Firestone tires. To address the shortcomings of the operative statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301), Congress added early warning provisions. The early warning provisions broadly authorize NHTSA to obtain information received by the manufacturer to the extent that such information "may" assist in the identification of defects. 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(A). Also, the Act specifically refers to information on deaths and injuries. In adopting the EWR regulations relating to deaths, NHTSA recognized that it would have to obtain information based on claims and notices, regardless of whether the manufacturer admitted a problem, had determined that there was a safety-related defect or was able to confirm the cause of death. At the same time, NHTSA recognized that the existence of a claim did not mean that a vehicle or item of equipment contained a defect or, even if there were a defect, that it was safety-related. NHTSA also decided that it should have information on deaths even if the claim or notice did not identify any system or component in a vehicle. These are coded as code 99 in the early warning reporting rules. See also code 98 (systems and components identified in claim but not specifically identified in the early warning rule). Under the approach of the EWR rule, NHTSA would obtain a complete listing of death incidents based on claims and notices and NHTSA -- rather than the manufacturer -- would decide what is important. I should add that historically NHTSA has been concerned about equipment related to motor vehicles that could cause deaths. For example, NHTSA has investigated and obtained a recall on jack stands. Similarly, NHTSA has addressed various items of equipment in recreational vehicles such as those that could cause fires. E.g., space heaters, external generators not attached to the vehicles engine, external (110 volt) power supplies and associated wiring; fuel tanks not used by the vehicles engine. We further took into account potential burdens and, for small volume manufacturers (fewer than 500 vehicles per year) apparently including KME, only required reports involving deaths, and not other matters. As we explained in the preamble to the final EWR rule:
67 Fed. Reg. 45822, 45841 (July 10, 2002). In view of these concerns and the agencys decisions on the approach to the rule, the EWR rule requires that even if a claim of death does not directly involve operation of the vehicle itself, the claim must be reported. This conclusion follows from the EWR reporting requirement of 49 CFR 579.27(b), which states in pertinent part:
Furthermore, we have consistently interpreted the requirement for manufacturers to report a claim or notice of a death incident to NHTSA to mean that manufacturers must report claims and notices of incidents of death regardless of the manufacturers view of the underlying facts. We have advised manufacturers to report a claim or notice of death even if the manufacturers vehicle or equipment did not initiate the sequence of events that lead to the death (see letter of August 18, 2003 to Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey), or when a component did not fall within any of the defined components of EWR rule (see letter of July 21, 2003 to Halcore Group), or even if the claim arose out of the performance of an aftermarket part (see letter of May 14, 2003 to National Truck Equipment Association, p.6). In view of the foregoing, under the EWR rule, Kovatch/KME must report any claim alleging a death, including a death allegedly caused by a pump or other item of equipment on a fire truck. If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:579 |
2004 |
ID: CORRECTN.PJAOpen Mr. Thomas D. Turner Dear Mr. Turner: This follows up on our March 20, 1996, interpretation letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. That letter contained an error, which was explained to you by Paul Atelsek of my staff in a telephone conversation. In response to your first question, we stated that the voluntarily installed side exit doors would still be subject to prohibitions and requirements that apply to side exit doors generally. That is true. However, we went on to give two examples of prohibitions and requirements in section S5.2.3.2. As the enclosed letter to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses explains, that section has an introductory sentence that, contrary to the agency's intent, restricts the scope of the requirements to required exit doors. We would also like to correct any possible implication that voluntarily installed exits are not subject to some requirements. The sentence at the top of page 2 of the March 20 letter stated "[t]o avoid confusion, the force and motion needed to open the [voluntarily installed] exit should be consistent with the other emergency exits (emphasis added)." In fact, the force and motion requirements of S5.3.3 apply to "each" exit, which includes voluntarily installed exits. We apologize for the error. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at 202-366-5260. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Enclosure |
1996 |
ID: Costa.1OpenMr. Larry J. Costa Dear Mr. Costa: This responds to your letters of May 6, 2003, and May 7, 2003, in which you request interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked whether the weight of a conductor is included along with attached glass fragments under Test No. 7 ("fracture test") when determining compliance with the requirement that no individual glass fragment may weigh more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.), and if so, whether attachment of such conductors would result in a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In a subsequent phone conversation with Eric Stas of this office, you stated that a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g. FMVSS No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"). FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways Standard ANSI Z26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a-1980 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "ANSI Z26-1980"). ANSI Z26.1-1980, Section 5.7, "Fracture, Test No. 7," limits the size of individual glass fragments that form as a result of impact to a glazing surface and requires that no individual fragment weigh more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.). That test is conducted using twelve 12 x 12-inch (305 x 305 mm) flat specimens, without any attached conductors or other enhancements. At present, FMVSS No. 205 does not specify requirements applicable to glazing to which conductors have been attached. However, as noted in our previous letter to you on this subject, NHTSA has been in the process of updating FMVSS No. 205 to incorporate a more recent version of ANSI-Z26, under which the glazing would need to be tested with conductors attached, if that condition represents the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number. On July 25, 2003, we published a final rule adopting the updated ANSI standard (68 FR 43964). Accordingly, this requirement will apply to all glazing certified on or after September 23, 2003, the effective date of the rule. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:205 |
2003 |
ID: costa24725Open
Mr. Larry J. Costa Dear Mr. Costa: This responds to your letter in which you ask that we provide a response to the following four questions:
Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither endorses, approves, nor conducts testing of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects. Pursuant to NHTSA=s authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called Aitems@), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference the commercial standard American National Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways - Standard ANSI Z26.1-1977 (ANSI Z26.1-1977) as supplemented by Z26.1a-1980 (hereinafter referred to as "ANS Z26"). In ANS Z26, Section 5.7 "Fracture, Test No. 7" limits the size of inDIVidual glass fragments that form as a result of impact to a glazing surface and requires that no inDIVidual glass fragment weigh more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.). This current test does not require that its procedure be conducted with the electrical terminals attached to the glazing materials conductors and soldered by processes that represent the manufacturers production and rework processes. Therefore, glazing which complies with the fragment size requirement of Test No. 7 prior to any soldering processes is presently compliant with this particular aspect of the FMVSS No. 205. NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on August 4, 1999 (64 FR 42330), to amend FMVSS No. 205 so that it incorporates by reference the October 1996 version of ANS Z26, the industry standard on motor vehicle glazing. Currently, the Federal standard incorporates the 1977 version. Section 5.7 "Fracture, Test 7" of the October 1996 version requires that no inDIVidual glass fragment weigh more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.) as in the current ANS Z26. However, it further requires that specimens: 1) be selected from a range of glazing that a manufacturer produces or plans to produce; and 2) be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number. Further, in selecting the specimens, thickness, color and conductors must be considered. Therefore, should we incorporate the 1996 version as proposed, manufacturers would be required to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any inDIVidual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.) in a fracture test. A final decision on that rulemaking is expected soon. 49 U.S.C. ' 30112 (copy enclosed) (formerly ' 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [1]) provides that no person shall Amanufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States@ any item of new motor vehicle equipment unless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any glazing material for use in motor vehicles unless the products comply with applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Further, it would be a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell a motor vehicle whose glazing does not comply with the performance and location requirements of Standard No. 205. In addition, 49 U.S.C. '30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly Amake inoperative@ any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Glazing material could only be installed by the aforementioned entities if it meets the performance and location requirements of FMVSS No. 205. A person that violates any of the aforementioned requirements is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and for each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act required by any of those sections. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are also subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA=s Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosures [1] Our statute, formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, was recodified in 1994 without substantive change. It is now codified at Title 49 of the U.S. Code in Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety.)
|
2002 |
ID: Costa_1OpenMr. Larry J. Costa Dear Mr. Costa: This responds to your letters of May 6, 2003, and May 7, 2003, in which you request interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked whether the weight of a conductor is included along with attached glass fragments under Test No. 7 ("fracture test") when determining compliance with the requirement that no individual glass fragment may weigh more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.), and if so, whether attachment of such conductors would result in a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In a subsequent phone conversation with Eric Stas of this office, you stated that a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g. FMVSS No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"). FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways Standard ANSI Z26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a-1980 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "ANSI Z26-1980"). ANSI Z26.1-1980, Section 5.7, "Fracture, Test No. 7," limits the size of individual glass fragments that form as a result of impact to a glazing surface and requires that no individual fragment weigh more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.). That test is conducted using twelve 12 x 12-inch (305 x 305 mm) flat specimens, without any attached conductors or other enhancements. At present, FMVSS No. 205 does not specify requirements applicable to glazing to which conductors have been attached. However, as noted in our previous letter to you on this subject, NHTSA has been in the process of updating FMVSS No. 205 to incorporate a more recent version of ANSI-Z26, under which the glazing would need to be tested with conductors attached, if that condition represents the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number. On July 25, 2003, we published a final rule adopting the updated ANSI standard (68 FR 43964). Accordingly, this requirement will apply to all glazing certified on or after September 23, 2003, the effective date of the rule. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:205 |
2003 |
ID: cowley.ztvOpenMr. Vance B. Cowley Dear Mr. Cowley: This is in reply to your recent letter asking about the "placement and quantity of marker lamps required on a truck" your company is manufacturing. The overall length of the truck is 31 feet 6 inches. You have provided two drawings depicting the lamps presently installed and would like us to indicate where any additional lamps and reflectors should be located, and the color of such lamps and reflectors. I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and a chart "Federal Lighting Equipment Location Requirements" applicable to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, which was jointly issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Transport Canada. These will provide you with the requirements relating to the number and location of all lamps and reflectors on your truck. Among other things, Standard No. 108 requires rear identification and clearance lamps to be mounted on the rear of a truck, not the rear of the truck cab. Furthermore, intermediate side marker lamps are required to be amber, not red. Your drawings appeared to deviate from these requirements. If you have any questions about the chart in connection with your design, you may call Rich Van Iderstine in our Office of Rulemaking (202-366-2720). Sincerely, Z. Taylor Vinson Enclosures |
1970 |
ID: cox.ztvOpenMr. Bill Cox Dear Mr. Cox: On August 31, 1998, we received your faxed manufacturer identification information sheet sent in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, and your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions. You informed us that Monte Carlo Minis Limited, Inc., wants to build "Mk 1 and Mk II Minis." These vehicles "will have all new parts except for the chassis or subframes." You comment that "if we replace the chassis, we know we would have to meet all the DOT and EPA regs." You ask whether you can "retain the old VIN number if we use the pre 1969 donor cars and chassis." You also state that "if we only exported the Minis to Japan I assume we would have to use the new VIN numbers as described in CFR 49." The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and other agency regulations do not apply to vehicles manufactured for export, and which are so labeled between the completion of their manufacture and shipment from the United States. Therefore, the VIN on vehicles intended to export for Japan should conform with the requirements of that country, if any, for VINs, rather than those of 49 CFR Part 565 for vehicles intended for sale in the United States. You incorrectly assume that retention of the old chassis alone is sufficient to excuse a vehicle from compliance with the FMVSS. The agency's opinions over the years have been premised upon the fact situation of a vehicle in use being modified to incorporate a new body on its original chassis and one which retained its original title. We have said that the resulting vehicle would not be considered a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS . The agency did not intend the word chassis to be interpreted narrowly but meant the term to indicate an assemblage that retained the original frame and all vehicle components other than the body, including the power train, brake system, suspension, and tires and wheels. The vehicles you intend to build would have "all new parts except for the chassis or subframes, including "the new [body] shell," "new suspension," and "new engine and transmission," while "the old chassis, sub frame is retained after being sandblasted." In our view, vehicles assembled using equipment as you have described it to us would be new motor vehicles which must comply with all applicable FMVSS in effect as of the date of assembly, and be certified as complying if they are to be sold for use in the United States. Among other things, such vehicles must have a VIN meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: creativecolors.jegOpen Ms. JoAnn Foster Dear Ms. Foster: This responds to your e-mail in which you ask about the repair of the outer skins of air bag module systems. You stated that your company is a national franchiser, providing on-site mobile services to the auto industry. These services include repairing, recoloring, and restoring both new and used automobile parts consisting of leather, vinyl, plastics, and fabric. You stated that you are often asked to repair minor abrasions on the outer skin covers of air bag modules. These requested repairs may be for new or used vehicles. You indicated that it is your current policy not to do any type of repair work that is part of the air bag module, but you would like information to help define what might be safely repaired. You cited the following issues of concern: 1. What are standards or regulations for a water-based coating applied over the original skin? 2. Can the materials surrounding the air bag system be repaired (not to include the seam)? 3. What are specifications of air bag modules regarding heat sensitivity to its outer skin? With the new side seat panel, the upholstery completely covers the air bag including the front bolster and it is difficult to detect location. I would like to comment first that you are right to be concerned about the possible safety consequences of repairing the outer skins of air bag module systems. We appreciate the concerns you have about the safety of your customers. While we can provide a summary of the legal issues related to the question you asked, I regret that we cannot provide you with specific technical information in response to your questions. It is certainly possible that coating the original air bag skin, repairing the materials surrounding the air bag system, and using heat near the air bag could adversely affect air bag performance. To analyze these issues, however, one would need to know the details of the actions being taken and the design details of the vehicle and the air bag system being repaired. We believe the parties which could provide the best assistance with your technical questions would be vehicle and air bag manufacturers. I will now turn to the legal issues raised by your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install frontal air bags as part of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. Other types of air bags, including side air bags, might have been installed as part of complying with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC 30122). I note that the "make inoperative" provision applies to both new and used vehicles. To avoid violating these provisions, dealers and other entities making the kinds of repairs to the air bag skin and surrounding materials that you describe should ensure that the repairs do not result in the performance of the air bag being degraded. Repairs that might affect air bag performance could also raise potential civil liability under tort law. This would be a matter of state law, and a private attorney could advise you about that subject. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:208 |
2001 |
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.