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: Katz.1OpenNorman Katz, Esq. Saretsky, Katz, Dranoff & Glass, L.L.P. 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Dear Mr. Katz: This responds to your inquiry of February 8, 2006, in which you asked whether there are any safety standards, directives, or regulations related to the necessity for safety shields to prevent the use of the solenoid switch to jumpstart a passenger vehicle. You further asked whether there are penalty provisions related to the agencys regulations and/or directives, and if so, how such penalties are enforced. In response to your questions, although our regulations do contain requirements for theft protection, there is not any specific requirement for a safety shield to prevent use of the solenoid switch to jumpstart a vehicle. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. 30111 and 49 CFR Part 571). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, but instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). Regarding enforcement of the agencys standards, NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge (see 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120). In addition, the manufacturer is liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each noncomplying item it produces (see 49 U.S.C. 30165), unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means), that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standards (see 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)). In addition, a manufacturer is prohibited from selling or making available for sale any vehicle or equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs (see 49 U.S.C. 30112). FMVSS No. 114, Theft Protection, specifies requirements for theft protection to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle (see 49 CFR 571.114 (copy enclosed)). It also specifies requirements to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from the rollaway of parked vehicles with automatic transmissions resulting from the shift mechanism being moved out of the park position. The standard applies to passenger cars and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less (excluding walk-in, van-type vehicles). Of note with respect to your question, paragraph S4.2 of the standard requires, Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) The normal activation of the vehicles engine or motor; and (b) Either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. Except in limited circumstances set forth in the standard, a vehicle with an automatic transmission with a park position must 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. When the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in park, the vehicle may not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade. The jumpstart situation suggested in your letter might arise from a variety of circumstances, including a vehicle owner seeking to activate the vehicle as a result of a lost/misplaced key, or more likely, an attempt by a third party to obtain the vehicle without the owners consent (theft). FMVSS No. 114 requires that the vehicle be configured so as to prevent steering or forward self-mobility when the key is removed. A manufacturer may use any available technology to meet the requirements of the standard (see enclosure from the NHTSA website regarding various anti-theft devices). Accordingly, it is not necessary to require use of any specific technology, such as the safety shield suggested in your letter. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:114 d.6/6/06 |
2006 |
ID: KenWeinsteinOpenKenneth N. Weinstein, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP 1909 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 Dear Mr. Weinstein: This responds to your letter asking about the legal effect of certain language included in various versions of this agencys Laboratory Test Procedure (TP) for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, prepared by our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. In your letter, you noted that in a final rule published in the Federal Register (64 FR 27203) on May 19, 1999, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) deleted a provision (S4.1(b)) in FMVSS No. 209 requiring that the lap belt portion of a safety belt system be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions. The final rule was effective on July 29, 1999. The deleted language read, in relevant part, as follows: A seat belt assembly shall provide pelvic restraint whether or not upper torso restraint is provided, and the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or rollover of the motor vehicle. . . . You stated in your letter that language derived from the deleted S4.1(b)[1] continued to appear in the TPs for FMVSS No. 209 until the issuance of TP-209-08 on December 7, 2007. This language read as follows: The assembly shall provide pelvic restraint whether or not upper torso restraint is provided, and the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or rollover of the motor vehicle. You stated further that at least one plaintiffs attorney has asserted in a products liability lawsuit that, notwithstanding the amendment to the standard, the presence of the quoted language in the TP for FMVSS No. 209 acted to impose a duty on vehicle manufacturers to assure that the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or rollover of the motor vehicle in all vehicles produced during the time that the language was present, i.e., until December 2007. You requested explicit confirmation that the inadvertent failure of OVSC to delete the language at issue from the TP did not, and does not, impose any requirements applicable to vehicles produced prior to that time. This letter provides the confirmation that you request. 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. As explained in a legal note set forth at the beginning of the OSVC TPs: The OVSC Test Procedures are prepared for the limited purpose of use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC. The TPs are not rules, regulations or NHTSA interpretations regarding the FMVSS. . . . The OVSC TPs do not impose any requirements on manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify compliance with applicable FMVSSs, not with TPs. The TPs do not have the effect of either adding to or limiting the requirements of the FMVSSs. As indicated above, the provision you asked about was deleted from that standard in a final rule that was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1999, and which became effective on July 29, 1999. Vehicles manufactured on after that effective date were not subject to that requirement. We note that, as a practical matter, it may not be possible for the agency to revise a TP by the time a particular amendment to an FMVSS becomes effective. As to the particular language you cite, we agree that in that case the agency inadvertently left language derived from the deleted provision in subsequent versions of the TP until December 2007. However, as indicated above, language in a TP does not impose any requirements on manufacturers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref: 209 d.1/16/09 [1] We note that the current version of FMVSS No. 209 has a paragraph S4.1(b) which is different and unrelated to the one deleted in 1999. |
2009 |
ID: kesler23584Open Mr. Ray Kesler Dear Mr. Kesler: This responds to your letter of August 22, 2001, asking if your mirror for original equipment manufacturers "is a permissible legal radius of curvature, information warning phrase, and using [sic] a FAIL SAFE reflective graphic concept permanently etched in glass mirror for day and night use." More specifically, you state that the radius of curvature of your mirror is 30-65 inches and your mirror contains a "ring indicator" and the phrase "Vehicles Larger than Ring Do Not Change Lanes." As explained below, your mirror is permitted only as a supplement to the mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), establishes performance and location requirements for mirrors installed in new vehicles. Several of its provisions concern the installation of convex outside rearview mirrors. Under FMVSS No. 111, only those passenger cars with inside rearview mirrors having an insufficient field of view are required to have passenger side mirrors. If convex mirrors are used, they must have a radius of curvature between 35 and 65 inches and they must be marked with the warning: "Objects in Mirror are Closer Than They Appear." In 1991, you petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a ring indicator applied to those mirrors. After reviewing your petition, the agency denied your request, finding that your suggested mirror system could, by comparison with our currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduce a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed (56 FR 42715, August 29, 1991). Subsequent correspondence from this Office (enclosed) tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited by the current requirements in FMVSS No. 111 from being installed on vehicles, as supplements to the required mirrors. The specifications for rearview mirror in your current correspondence appear to be identical to those contained in your previous petition except that the radius of curvature is now between 30 and 65 inches. This range of curvature, however, is not within the radius of curvature (between 35 and 65 inches) required by FMVSS No. 111. Furthermore, your rearview mirror is not marked with the warning: "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear" as required by FMVSS No. 111. For these reasons and as explained in length in the denial notice, see 56 FR 42716, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111. 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 (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Enclosure |
2001 |
ID: key-like objectOpenGerald Plante, General Manager Dear Mr. Plante: This responds to your inquiry regarding the definition of "key-like object" in relation to the buckle release requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Specifically you asked if the tongue from a safety belt buckle would be considered a "key-like object" for purposes of the standard. As explained below, a buckle tongue would conform to the definition of "key-like object" under the system you described. On December 8, 2004, we amended FMVSS No. 208 to require all designated seating positions in rear seats, other than side-facing seats, be equipped with Type 2 integral lap/shoulder safety belts (69 FR 70904). For certain folding and removable seats, the standard permits use of a release mechanism that detaches both the lap and shoulder portion at either the upper or lower anchorage point, but not both (See S4.1.5.5.2, S4.2.7.2, S4.2.7.4, and S4.2.7.5 of FMVSS No. 208). The standard also specifies that detachment must be by means of a "key or key-like object". In a phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you asked how the agency defines "key-like object". In a follow-up letter you specifically asked whether a tongue from an adjacent buckle would meet the definition of "key-like object".Your letter described a "release mechanism in which the shoulder belt portion [of a safety belt] is detached by inserting the tongue from another belt into a narrow slot".The photographs you provided illustrate a buckle with a narrow slot on the side that would accept the corner of a tongue from another belt. In specifying the requirement for a "key or key-like object," we were concerned about the potential for inadvertent release of a safety belt. This potential is particularly acute with typical push-button releases, which can be released with the push of a finger. We stated that manufacturers may choose to use the door or ignition key since these keys are always likely to be in the driver's possession when the belt needs to be detached. However, to provide flexibility in design we also permitted use of a "key-like object". The standard does not define "key-like object", but the preamble to the December 2004 final rule notes that a design in which an object must be inserted into a small hole in order to release a latch would comply with the requirement (69 FR 70908). Although your system has a slot as opposed to a hole, it also requires use of an object other than an occupants finger to release the latch. Under your system, a buckle tongue (or similarly shaped object) must be placed in the appropriate slot to release the latch, and therefore functions as a "key-like object". The system you described, therefore, would comply with the "key-like object" requirement in S4.1.5.5.2, S4.2.7.2, S4.2.7.4, and S4.2.7.5 of FMVSS No. 208. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:208 |
|
ID: kiabag.nhfOpenMr. Reymundo Mangahas Dear Mr. Mangahas: This responds to your letter requesting permission to deactivate the knee air bag in your 1998 KIA Sportage. You explain that you are disabled and need to install hand controls in the vehicle to allow you to drive. In your letter, you state that the knee air bag interferes with the proper installation of the hand controls and needs to be deactivated. You also enclose a prescription for the hand controls from your doctor. This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that deactivates the knee air bag to install hand controls on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. If you show this letter to your dealer or mechanic, you should be able to get this work performed. We would like to explain that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, 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 standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. Currently, there is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to not exceed specified injury criteria during a test. We do not have information regarding how the occupant protection system without the knee air bag will perform in a crash. You may wish to ask Kia what effect removing or disconnecting the knee air bag may have on the vehicle, which may influence your decision to disconnect it. As noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that removes the knee air bag to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, your mechanic or dealer should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the knee air bag. The vehicle manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. In addition, if the vehicle is sold, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate. Finally, to improve occupant crash protection, we encourage you to use the vehicle's seat belts and to recommend that other drivers and passengers buckle up as well. You may be interested to know that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 28, 1998, in the Federal Register and are in the process of reviewing public comments. If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: kill.ztvOpen Mr. Bill Cox Dear Mr. Cox: We are replying further to your petition for temporary exemption of the Mini passenger car from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that it has taken some time to get back to you since my letter of November 4, 1996. After considerable discussion within the agency, I am sorry to tell you that we have concluded that we cannot consider you a "manufacturer" within the meaning of the temporary exemption hardship regulations. This means that we cannot consider your petition. As we understand the facts from the correspondence we have received from you since last summer, Monte Carlo Minis was established at the beginning of 1996, with you as the sole owner, for the purpose of importing and selling Rover Mini passenger cars that are not manufactured to conform to any motor vehicle regulations of the United States, including the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because Monte Carlo had neither income or expenses, you were unable to file with your petition any information on the financial status of the company. The manufacturer of the car is not willing to sell you any vehicles for your enterprise, or to cooperate with you by furnishing information that would assist you in determining the extent to which the Mini might or might not meet U.S. requirements. You propose to buy the cars from a Mini dealer in Belgium. You are willing to remove all items of motor vehicle equipment that do not meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards and to replace them with conforming parts. You have received an estimate from a Registered Importer of the expense to conform the noncomplying Minis. You state that this Registered Importer, J&K Imports, located in Maryland, will be the company that actually conforms the vehicles to those standards for which no exemption has been granted, and installs propane engines to meet EPA requirements. In the 25 years that the exemption authority has been in effect, with the exception of Isis Imports and Cantab Ltd., the agency has accepted temporary exemption petitions based upon hardship only from the actual manufacturer of the motor vehicle for which exemption was sought. We have not accepted petitions from importers who have no legal or commercial relationship to the manufacturer. An exception was made for Isis and Cantab on the basis that they had been Morgan dealers, and were receiving Morgan cars without engines, completing their manufacture by installing U.S. Ford engines converted to propane. In general, these companies petitioned for exemption from only one or two of the safety standards, and certfied compliance with the rest partially on the basis of information furnished them by the British manufacturer. Both Isis and Cantab's petitions spoke of the cooperation shown by Morgan in assisting their attempts to furnish air bags and other safety equipment. In contrast, you have no legal or commercial relationship to Rover. In fact, Rover has specifically advised you that it will not furnish you with cars, nor will it provide information as to the compliance status of the British Mini with respect to the U.S. standards, let alone compliance of a Mini manufactured for the Dutch market which you propose to import. Further, under our laws, a manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required to notify owners and remedy any safety related defect or noncompliance with a standard that occurs in its product. Isis and Cantab were existing enterprises with a demonstrated financial record. Whether Monte Carlo Minis has the financial resources necessary to initiate and complete a notification and remedy campaign cannot be determined on the basis of your representation that the company has no balance sheet or income statement. Even if such resources exist, the record does not provide any assurance that Rover would cooperate in furnishing you replacement parts so that a safety related defect or noncompliance could be corrected within a reasonable time. We have reached this conclusion with regret because we appreciate your willingness to comply with Federal regulations while bringing to our attention those who may not be so publicly spirited. We have informed our enforcement staff of the other companies that may be selling Minis so that they may consider what action is appropriate under the circumstances. Finally, in your FAX of March 13, 1997, you have asked whether you can upgrade to 12 inch tires and rims and add disc brakes to the pre-1973 Minis that you import, reporting that Customs officials in Port Elizabeth, New York, consider that Minis so equiped were manufactured in 1984 or later. Because vehicles more than 25 years old are exempt from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you are free to make these modifications without violating our regulations. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack ref:555 |
1997 |
ID: Kim.1OpenMr. Jongsoo Kim Dear Mr. Kim: This responds to your e-mail to Coleman Sachs of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance in which you seek clarification regarding the manner in which air bag cushion material is tested under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Specifically, you asked whether the air bag material is tested in an uninflated (pre-deployment) or inflated (post-deployment) state. As discussed below, the standards test requirements apply to air bag cushion materials in an uninflated state. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 302 sets forth burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, in order to reduce deaths and injuries associated with vehicle fires caused by matches, cigarettes, or some other source. In general, the standards test procedures provide for a component specimen to be burned in a metal cabinet, and in order to meet the requirements of the standard, such materials may not exceed a specified burn rate within 60 seconds from the start of timing. Paragraph S4.1 of the standard delineates the types of materials covered by the standard. That listing includes any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Paragraph S4.1 does not specifically address whether an air bag is tested in a pre-deployment or post-deployment state. Moreover, this issue has not been addressed in FMVSS No. 302 rulemakings. We do not read into the standard a test condition that the air bag be deployed prior to testing. Accordingly, when conducting testing under FMVSS No. 302, the agency will test the air bag cushion material in its uninflated (pre-deployment) state. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:302 |
2006 |
ID: kim.ztvOpenMr. Song M. Kim
Dear Mr. Kim: This is in reply to your letter of August 18, 2003, regarding High Intensity Discharge (HID) conversion kits. You informed us that you have been selling such kits to local distributors and dealer shops. Your first question is whether the use of aftermarket HID conversion kits is "going to be illegal," and, if so, the reason for it. I enclose a copy of our letter of November 18, 2002, to Jeff Deetz, who had supplied an HID conversion kit for our examination.We informed Mr. Deetz that his kit was "not a design that conforms to the Standard [No. 108] and could not be certified as conforming with [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard] (FMVSS) No. 108, nor imported into or sold in the United States." HID conversion kits are illegal if any item in the kit does not comply with Federal requirements for vehicle lighting equipment.Please read the letter carefully and apply our analysis to the components of the kits you are selling. If one or more of these components does not comply with FMVSS No. 108, then you should cease the sale and distribution of this equipment. Your failure to do so could make your company liable for civil penalties for violations of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).If your company manufactured or imported noncompliant HID conversion kits for resale, your company is required to notify this agency, dealers, purchasers, and owners of the kits and to remedy the noncompliance in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120 and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. I should advise you that we know of no HID conversion kit that can be certified by its manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 108. You expressed your understanding that "D.O.T. is an approvable organization," and asked "if we would like to get your approval for HID conversion system, what will be the necessary procedures?"We have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicle equipment.We have authority, however, to order the recall of noncompliant motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The symbol "DOT" on an item of equipment is sometimes misconstrued as approval by the Department of Transportation.In fact, the symbol is the manufacturers certification that the item complies with all applicable FMVSS, as required by 49 USC 30115. If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. J. Edward Glancy of this office at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2003 |
ID: klein.rbmOpenMr. Richard H. Klein Dear Mr. Klein: This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration asking about the recordkeeping obligations of a motor vehicle manufacturer under 49 CFR 574.10. I apologize for the delay in our response. You wrote on behalf of your client, the National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM). You stated that you believed only tire manufacturers are required to retain records on purchasers of new tires. 49 CFR Part 574 has two separate recordkeeping requirements. Both sections have been in effect, largely unchanged, since 1971. The first, 49 CFR 574.7, applies to tire manufacturers and requires them to maintain tire registration records that they receive from tire dealers and distributors. The second section, 49 CFR 574.10, applies to motor vehicle manufacturers and requires them to maintain registration records on tires that they install on motor vehicles prior to first sale. These two recordkeeping requirements are separate requirements. Thus, NATM's members are required to keep records of all new tires they place on their motor vehicles prior to first sale subject to the requirements of 49 CFR 547.10. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, |
2000 |
ID: knapheide.ztvOpenMr. John D. Evans Dear Mr. Evans: We are responding to your letter of October 10, 2002, asking five questions with respect to interpretations of the "early warning reporting" final rule (49 CFR Part 579, Subpart C). Your first question was:
In adopting a definition of "structure," we observed that "we believe it is important to obtain information about problems with a vehicles structure, since many other systems and components attach to the structure" (67 FR at 45861). Section 579.22(b)(2) establishes reporting codes for 22 systems and components of medium heavy trucks and buses. Only "structure" is appropriate for reporting issues directly related to the body of a vehicle, so all reports regarding the body should be filed in the "structure" category. See also, response to final question below. Your second question was:
The purpose of the early warning reporting rule is to provide NHTSA with an earlier indication of potential safety problems in part through submission of the number of warranty claims relating to specified components and systems. These problems generally have their origin in the design or manufacture of a motor vehicle. They do not have their origin in events that occur after a vehicle has left the direct control of a manufacturer, such as dings in shipping, damage from leaking water (although "paint failure" cited by the commenter could indicate a deficiency in manufacturing), and the like, or, as Knapheide put it, warranty issues that have "nothing to do with the vehicle as manufactured by the OEM." Your third question was:
Generally, accessories that are installed inside of a service body would appear to have little potential for creating a motor vehicle safety-related defect. We therefore do not expect warranty claims on "these types of accessories" to be reported to NHTSA unless they do affect safety, such as a problem that creates the risk of a fire. Your fourth question was:
Ancillary pieces of equipment added to the exterior of a truck body can be defective in themselves and they have the potential for creating a safety-related defect, and warranty claims involving them must be reported. Since there is no code under Section 579.22(b)(1) for reporting systems and components other than the 22 specified, "structure" is the appropriate reporting category. You prefaced your final question with the explanation that Knapheide is a manufacturer of original and replacement truck body equipment that it sells through distributors. One of the distributors is Knapheides wholly-owned subsidiary while four others "have common shareholders" with Knapheide. These five entities are all final stage manufacturers (as well as distributors). You asked:
We interpret this question as based on the assumption that each of the five manufacturing corporations will report to NHTSA separately. If Knapheide itself were not a final stage manufacturer, it would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment other than child restraint systems and tires, and subject to the less extensive requirements of Section 579.27. Its wholly owned subsidiary would have to report as a vehicle manufacturer, and if it manufactured 500 or more vehicles per year of any specified category, it would have to file comprehensive reports as under Section 579.21 and/or Section 579.22. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:579 |
2003 |
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.