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: aiam4637OpenMr. Randy Blackman Per-Lux Inc. 1242 E. Edna Place Covina, CA 91724; Mr. Randy Blackman Per-Lux Inc. 1242 E. Edna Place Covina CA 91724; "Dear Mr. Blackman: This responds to your letter asking for informatio about the application of Federal safety standards to a head restraint that attaches to the rear window of pickup trucks. I hope the following information is helpful. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraint device sold as an item of 'aftermarket' equipment for pickup trucks. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed), would also affect your head restraint if your product were installed by a commercial business on either new or used vehicles. A manufacturer installing your head restraint device on a new truck prior to certifying the truck as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as required by the Safety Act, has certain responsibilities relating to that obligation to certify. Standard No. 302 establishes flammability resistance requirements for trucks that must be met by certain vehicle components, including head restraints. The new vehicle manufacturer that installs your product on the new vehicle would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the head restraint device conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. A commercial business wishing to install the head restraint on new or used vehicles would be subject to statutory considerations that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle without violating the Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. In addition to the materials described above, I am also enclosing a Federal Register notice (53 FR 50047) that NHTSA issued on December 13, 1988, proposing to extend the applicability of Standard No. 202 to light trucks and vans. NHTSA has proposed to make this extension effective September 1, 1991. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding by this fall. We are also returning herewith the sketch you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information which you asked us not to publicly disclose. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam2246OpenMr. Thomas A. Kirwan III, 611 South Congress, Suite 400, Austin, TX 78704; Mr. Thomas A. Kirwan III 611 South Congress Suite 400 Austin TX 78704; Dear Mr. Kirwan: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1976, requestin information concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applicable to transit vehicles, specifically, Dodge vans that will be used in a rural transportation system.; The answers to your questions are as follows: >>>(1) 'Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?'<<< If your Dodge vans are designed to carry 10 persons or less they woul qualify as 'multipurpose passenger vehicles', as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3. As multipurpose passenger vehicles, the Dodge vans would be subject to the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards listed below. The standards marked with an asterisk (*) are equipment standards and do not apply to the vehicles themselves. Rather, these standards set forth requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment for use in multipurpose passenger vehicles.; >>>No. 101 - *Control Location, Identification, and Illumination.* No. 102 - *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, an Transmission Braking Effect*.; No. 103 - *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems*. No. 104 - *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*. *No. 106-74 - *Brake Hoses*. No. 107 - *Reflecting Surfaces*. No. 108 - *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.* No. 111 - *Rearview Mirrors.* No. 112 - *Headlamp Concealment Devices*. No. 113 - *Hood Latch System.* *No. 116 - *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.* No. 118 - *Power Operated Window Systems*. *No. 119 - *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenge Cars.*; No. 120 - *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than(sic Passenger Cars*.; No. 124 - *Accelerator Control Systems*. *No. 125 - *Warning Devices*. *No. 205 - *Glazing Materials*. No. 206 - *Door Locks and Door Retention Components.* No. 207 - *Seating Systems*. No. 208 - *Occupant Crash Protection.* *No. 209 - *Seat Belt Assemblies*. No. 210 - *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. No. 211 - *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub Caps*. No. 213 - *Child Seating Systems*. No. 219 - *Windshield Zone Intrusion*. No. 301-75 - *Fuel System Integrity*. No. 302 - *Flammability of Interior Materials*.<<< The manufacturer of the Dodge vans must affix a label to each vehicl certifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, as required by 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification.* This certification label should be affixed to the door or door post of each vehicle, and you should check to make certain that it is present.; Please note that if the Dodge vans are designed to carry more than 1 persons, they would be classified as 'buses' under 49 CFR Part 567.3, and the list of applicable safety standards would differ.; >>>(2) 'Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for van used in transit?'<<<; No. The NHTSA has issued only the requirements found in the moto vehicle safety standards and regulations.; >>>(3) 'Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. thos filled with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)?'<<<; No. Such vehicles must meet the same standards as other MPV's. >>>(4) 'Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletop on vans in transit service?'<<<; Yes. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials,* 49 CF 571.205, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Rigid plastic materials that are to be used as covers for openings in the roof of a vehicle must conform to the requirements specified in paragraph S5.1.2.1 of Standard No. 205.; >>>(5) 'Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highwa Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?'<<<; Yes. Driver qualifications for transit vehicles are governed by Federa Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR Part 391, *Qualifications of Drivers*.; >>>(6) 'Could you provide any further information which you feel woul contribute to the safe operation of our transit system?'<<<; At the present time the NHTSA has not issued any general guideline concerning the organization or operation of transit systems. You may, however, wish to contact the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of this Department for information on this subject.; I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. Pleas contact us if we can (sic) of any further assistance.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4314OpenMr. Bruce W. Smith, President, Unit Corporation, R.R. 2, Box 1, Loogootee, IN 475553; Mr. Bruce W. Smith President Unit Corporation R.R. 2 Box 1 Loogootee IN 475553; Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your letter, in which you sought this agency' 'recommendation' on one of your new products. The product in question is a sun visor intended to be used on rear-facing toddler seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.; This agency has promulgated the Federal motor vehicle safety standard under the authority granted by Congress in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.). In the case of your sun visor, the only safety standard with which you would be concerned is Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213), a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Please note that the Safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, including Standard No. 213, do not apply to the child restraint system after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule then is that aftermarket accessories, such as your sun visor, may be added to child restraint systems without violating Standard No. 213.; This general rule is, however, limited by the provision of sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies, 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...'; There are two elements of design incorporated in child restraints i compliance with Standard No. 213 that might be affected by adding your sun visor. First, all child restraints are required to incorporate resistance to flammability. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 specifies, 'Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302.' I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information. Second, child restraints recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That section requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your sun visor would impair either the flammability resistance or the head impact protection designed into a child restraint to which the visor is attached, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing the visor would be rendering inoperative a Federally required element of design, thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each child restraint on which a Federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation of section 108.; Since child restraint owners are not among the parties listed i section 108(a)(2)(A), they are not required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design provided under either the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 213 or the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, this agency would urge you to voluntarily ensure that your sun visor would not render any such elements inoperative.; Additionally, you should be aware that you will be a manufacturer o motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture the child restraint sun visor for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your sun visor had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either:; >>>1. repair the visor so that the defect is removed, or<<< >>>2. replace the visor with an identical or reasonably equivalen product that does not have the defect.<<<; Whichever of these options were chosen, you as the manufacturer woul have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. This means you could not charge owners of the visor for the remedy if the visor were first purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.; I would also like to make clear that this explanation is not an agenc 'recommendation'. NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When we are presented with questions from potential manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment, we only explain how our statute and regulations would apply to such products. It is up to the potential manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please feel free to contract Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4346OpenMs. Deborah Rutan, Director of Marketing/Research, The Rutabaga Co., Inc., P. O. Box 413, 605 Robson Street, Winona Lake, IN 46590; Ms. Deborah Rutan Director of Marketing/Research The Rutabaga Co. Inc. P. O. Box 413 605 Robson Street Winona Lake IN 46590; Dear Ms. Rutan: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213, copy enclosed). Specifically, you sought our 'comments and recommendations' on a child harness/vest that your company has developed. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.; As you noted in your letter, your product is a 'child restraint system within the meaning of section S4 of Standard No. 213. this means that it is subject to all applicable requirements of the standard. From the pictures and descriptions of your harness/vest included with your letter, it appears that the harness/vest would have to be modified to comply with four particular requirements in Standard No. 213.; The first requirements with which you harness/vest does not appear t comply is set forth in section S5.4.3.4(b) of Standard No. 213. That section provides that each child harness shall 'provide lower torso restraint by means of lap and crotch belt.' The pictures of your harness/vest show that it does *not* include a crotch belt to restrain the child's lower torso. You will have to modify the design of the harness/vest to include a crotch belt in order for your harness/vest to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213.; The second requirement with which your harness/vest may not comply i the flammability resistance requirement incorporated in section S5.7 of Standard No. 213. That section provides, 'Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302.' I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information. As you will see, that standard requires that subject materials be resistant to flammability. You stated in your letter that the 'vest fabric is a strong, yet lightweight, polyester jersey knit.' It is not clear from this description if you knew your company has to certify that this vest fabric complies with the flammability resistance requirements specified in Standard No. 213.; The third and fourth requirements with which your harness/vest does no appear to comply are the labeling requirements in S5.5 of Standard No. 213 and the installation instructions in S5.6 of Standard No. 213. Both these requirements specify that certain information must be provided with each child restraint system. In the case of the labeling information, you are required to permanently label your harness/vest with the information specified in S5.5.2(a) through (1). Further, S5.5.3 requires that the information specified in S5.5.2(g) through (k) shall be located on the child restraint system so that it is visible when the system is properly installed in a vehicle. In the case of the installations instructions, S5.6.6 requires that the harness/vest have a location on it for storing your installation instructions. This could be satisfied by adding a pouch to the vest for storing these instructions.; In addition to these requirements, you would have to determine that th harness/vest complies with all the performance requirements set forth in S5 of Standard No. 213. Once you have made such a determination, you are required to certify that each harness/vest you manufacture satisfies all applicable requirements of Standard No. 213. This agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the child restraint, or any tests at all. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et Seq.*), we only require that a manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint system complies with Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling a new child restraint system test the system in accordance with the test procedures specified in Standard No. 213. Once you determine that your harness/vest complies with all requirements of Standard No. 213, you would certify that compliance by placing a certification label on the harness/vest, as specified in section S5.5 of the standard.; You should also be aware of the fact that you will be a manufacturer o motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture your harness/vest for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements or sections 151- 159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products that either do not comply with an applicable safety standard or have defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your harness/vest did not comply with a requirements of Standard No. 213 or that it had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the noncompliance or defects and either:; >>>1. repair the harness/vest so that the noncompliance or defect wa removed, or<<<; >>>2. replace the harness/vest with an identical or reasonabl equivalent product that does not have the noncompliance or defect.<<<; Whichever of these options were chosen, your company as th manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. This means you could not charge the owners of the harness/vests anything for the remedy if those harness/vest were purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.; If your decide to manufacture these harness/vests for sale, you shoul also be aware of 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification* (copy enclosed). This regulation requires a manufacturer of child restraint systems to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the child restraints it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured.; Finally, I would like to make clear that this discussion of ou requirements is not an agency 'recommendation'. NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. When we are presented with questions from potential manufacturers of new vehicles or items of equipment, such as your harness/vests, we only explain how our statute and regulations would apply to the new product. It is up to the individual manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of its product.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202)366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4248OpenMr. Dan Wilinsky, Corporate Communications Group, Inc., #34 Corporate Woods, Suite 220, 10950 Grandview Drive, Overland Park, KS 66210; Mr. Dan Wilinsky Corporate Communications Group Inc. #34 Corporate Woods Suite 220 10950 Grandview Drive Overland Park KS 66210; Dear Mr. Wilinsky: This responds to your recent letter, in which you posed severa questions about a device you would like to sell. The device is a mirror attachment for rear-facing infant seats, which would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations, and will address your questions in the order they were posed in your letter.; >>>A, Would this mirror attachment, made of plastic and Milar (sic) violate and Federal safety standards?<<<; RESPONSE: The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are issued unde the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). In this case, you would be most concerned with Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213), a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Please note that the Safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, including Standard No. 213, do not apply to the child restraint system after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule then is that aftermarket accessories may be added to child restraint systems without violating Standard No. 213.; This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' There are two elements of design which might be affected by adding your mirror attachment. One of the elements of design required in all child restraint systems that might be affected by your mirror attachment is resistance to flammability. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 specifies: 'Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302.' I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information. The other element of design that might be affected by your mirror attachment relates to the head impact protection requirements of S5.2.3 of Standard No. 213. That sections requires that each system surface contactable by the child's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that child restraint occupants will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your mirror would impair either the flammability resistance or the head impact protection of the child restraint system, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing the mirror would be rendering inoperative a federally required element of design, thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each child restraint on which a federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation.; If child restraint owners installed these aftermarket mirrors, the would not be required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design provided under either the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 213 or the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, this agency would urge you voluntarily (sic) avoid rendering any such elements inoperative.; Additionally, you should be aware that you will be a manufacturer o motor vehicle equipment, if you manufacture the child restraint mirror for sale, and as such will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your mirror had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and either:; >>>1. repair the product so that the defect is removed, or 2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalen product that does not have the defect.<<<; Whichever of these options were chosen, the manufacturer must bear th full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.; >>>B. Does the use of a mirror attachment seem feasible an practical?<<<; RESPONSE: This agency does not offer its opinion as to the value o practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. Assuming that child restraint systems with the mirrors attached will continue to comply with the head impact protection requirements and the flammability requirements in Standard No. 213, they would not appear to pose any reasonable safety hazard to the child occupant of the rear-facing seats.; >>>C. What does the Code of Federal Regulations/NHTSA have to say abou physical dimensions for rear-facing infant carrier attachments?<<<; RESPONSE: As noted above, NHTSA has no regulations specificall applicable to any aftermarket attachment items. The only dimensional requirements applicable to rear- facing child restraint systems will provide adequate support and restraint for a child during a crash. Since your mirror attachments would not provide either support or restraint to the child during a crash, none of Standard No. 213's dimensional requirements would be applicable even if the mirrors were original equipment on a child restraint system.; >>>D. What are the other government requirements for suc attachments?<<<; RESPONSE: We are not aware of any other Federal government agency tha regulates items of motor vehicle equipment.; >>>E. How would I go about having this product tested and approved b the Federal government and approximately how long would that take?<<<; RESPONSE: By way of background, NHTSA does not use a certificatio process similar to that used by the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the product to be tested to a governmental entity and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, the manufacturer of the product conducts any necessary testing and itself certifies that the product complies with NHTSA's applicable standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' products or offer assurances of compliance by the product.; However, this distinction may not be important with respect to you mirror attachments for child restraints. As noted above, Standard No. 213 does not apply to items of aftermarket equipment for child restraint systems. Therefore, you cannot certify that your mirror attachments comply with Standard No. 213, because those attachments are not subject to Standard No. 213. You may wish to test the attachment to learn if it complies with the flammability requirements and attach it to a child restraint to determine if the mirror attachment affects the child restraint's compliance with the head impact protection requirements. Any such testing would be for your own purposes, however, and is not required by the Federal government before you sell the mirror attachments to the public.; >>>F. Would this product as described need to be approved by stat governments (as well as federal) before coming to market?<<<; RESPONSE: As explained above, the product does not have to b 'approved' by the Federal government before you can sell it to the public. Various States may have requirements concerning child restraint systems. However, section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that '(w)henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard.' Thus, any non-identical State safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 213 would be preempted by the provisions of the Safety Act, making the non-identical standard legally unenforceable.; States do have authority to enforce identical standards related to th same aspect of performance as Standard No. 213, and also have authority to regulate in areas not covered by the Federal standards. To learn more about this issue, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20036.; If you have further questions or need more information on this subject please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 1984-1.12Open TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/08/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.) TEXT: Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573 This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.
The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.
Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.
Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.
December 7, 1983 Dear Mr. Kratzke:
Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).
I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.
I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager
BDT:csy |
|
ID: labelsonuppertetherandloweranchorageOpenMr. John Nagel Dear Mr. Nagel: This responds to your letter of February 9, 2001, which you transmitted to this office via facsimile. In that letter, you ask whether under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), the following statement should be put on the lower anchorage belt and/or the upper tether belt: "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213/ FMVSS 302." By lower anchorage belt and upper tether belt, you mean, respectively: (a) the straps of a child restraint system which attach to components that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system (see S5.9(a) of FMVSS No. 213); and (b) the strap of a child restraint system to which a tether hook is attached (S5.9(b)). You explain that your company supplies the belts to a child restraint manufacturer, which then sells the belts with the completed child restraint. You also plan on selling the lower anchorage belts directly to parents who then use the belts to retrofit their existing child restraint systems. Is the Label Required by FMVSS No. 213? FMVSS No. 213 does not require you to put such a label on either belt. FMVSS No. 213 applies to new child restraint systems, and not to components of child restraints, such as the belts you supply to child restraint manufacturers. Manufacturers of child restraints are required to certify that their child restraints meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213. They certify their restraints by placing a label on the child restraint system that reads: "This child restraint system conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." (S5.5.2(e)). Because FMVSS No. 213 does not apply to component parts, such as lower anchorage belts or upper tether belts, which are supplied to manufacturers for installation in child restraints, such component parts are not required to have a similar label. May You Voluntarily Label the Belts? Whether the label is permissible depends, in part, on how you market and sell the belts. As noted above, you plan to market and sell the belts in two different ways. You plan to sell the lower anchorage belt and upper tether belt to manufacturers and you plan to sell the lower anchorage belt directly to the public. The answer to your question differs for each of these situations, so each situation will be discussed separately. One consideration to bear in mind is that a manufacturer cannot certify that its product meets the requirements of a standard if that particular standard does not actually apply to that product. To do so would be misleading to consumers. 1. Selling the Belts to a Manufacturer A. "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213" Your label is permissible with respect to the statement on the tether strap that refers to FMVSS No. 213, ("CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213..."). However, S5.9 (a) of FMVSS No. 213 does not require child restraints to have the lower anchorage belts until September 1, 2002. A manufacturer cannot certify to a requirement that has not yet become mandatory. Accordingly, you may label the upper tether belt as conforming to FMVSS No. 213, but until September 1, 2002, you can not label the lower anchorage belt with a certification or a "conforms to FMVSS 213" statement. B. "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 302" You may label the belts "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 302." Paragraph S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213 specifies that each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to S4 ("requirements") of FMVSS No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Thus, FMVSS No. 302 is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 213 and applies to the belts. Therefore, a label stating that the belts conform to FMVSS No. 302 would not be misleading. 2. Selling the Lower Anchorage Belts to the Public You also wish to sell the lower anchorage belt with the abovementioned label directly to the public so consumers can purchase it to retrofit their existing child seats. The use of the label in this instance is not permissible. FMVSS Nos. 213 and 302 do not apply to items of equipment sold in the aftermarket. Accordingly, in this instance, you cannot label the lower anchorage belt as conforming to either FMVSS No. 213 or FMVSS No. 302 because doing so would be misleading. Sincerely, John Womack ref:213#225#302 |
2001 |
ID: 1984-1.11OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/07/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Nr. Karl-Heinx Faber -- Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Administration Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645 This is in response to your September 14, 1983, letter in which you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirm that the Unimog vehicle produced by Mercedes-Benz is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The agency stated in a March 9, 1972, letter that a previous version of the Unimog would not be classified as a "motor vehicle." The principal differences between the 1972 version of the Unimog and the version expected to be sold in the near future are, based on your representations made in a September 8 meeting with agency staff increases in engine horsepower, gross vehicle weight rating, wheelbase, length, width, height, and certain ground clearance specifications. The anticipated sales level for the vehicle is slightly higher than the past level, as well.
It appears that none of these changes would affect the classification of the Unimog under the Safety Act. Therefore, we conclude that the vehicle is still not a "motor vehicle." This conclusion presumes that the Unimogs would still be marketed, as in the past, principally through farm machinery and heavy equipment dealers, and that the vehicle would have affixed in the cab a label stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use. Sincerely Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel cc: Mr. J. Sonosky Hogan and Hartson 815 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20006
September 14, 1983
Mr. Frank Berndt 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590
Subject: Classification of the Unimog Vehicle
Dear Mr. Berndt:
On March 9, 1972, after a thorough review, NHTSA advised us that the Mercedes-Benz Unimog was not a "motor vehicle" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) and therefore was not subject to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The letter also mentioned that the Agency's decision was subject to future review and reconsideration on the basis of any relevant information that might come to its attention.
On September 8, 1983, a meeting took place at the Agency with Messrs. Wood, Shifflet and Fairchild of your staff, Mr. Sonosky of Hogan & Hartson, counsel to MBNA, and members of my staff present. In this meeting, the planned expansion of the Unimog marketing program and technical changes in the vehicle were discussed in detail. A table showing specifications of the new Unimog models we intend to introduce as well as several brochures showing the intended uses of the vehicles were left with your staff. For your convenience, we enclose a duplicate set of that material. The number of models with only minor differences in GVWR and engine horsepower reflects our aim to provide that best suited equipment for each individual use.
In the discussion, your staff expressed interest in obtaining marketing data which would substantiate the off-highway nature of the vehicle as indicated by actual sales and implement applications. Enclosed please find a list of implements and attachments sold with Unimogs from 1975 to this date, the Unimog sales figure for the same period, and a summary of the Unimog use by business. Other issues raised by your staff include whether the vehicle will continue to be labeled as in the past and sold through a dealer network related to farm machinery and heavy equipment. This is to re-affirm our intention to maintain both practices in our expanded program.
We trust that the information provided to your staff at the meeting, and the information contained in the enclosed material, are sufficient to enable you to maintain the decision expressed in the Agency's letter of March 9, 1972, for the new generation Unimog models which differ in size from the Unimog 900 but which, like their predecessor, were designed as off-road implement carriers and not intended primarily for use on roads and highways. Since the initiation of our new marketing program is imminent, we respectfully request your expeditious review of this matter. Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely, Original signed by (?) Enclosure
Implements and attachments sold with Unimogs during Calendar Year 1975 through 1983 by order of sale volume:
QUANTITY IMPLEMENT/ATTACHMENT
150 Snowplow 112 Snowblower/Cutter 80 Backhoe 74 Doser Blade 64 Salt and Sand Spreader 34 Railroad Switcher 32 Front End Loader 24 Three-Point Hitch for Agriculture 23 Broom/Sweeper 23 Mower 18 Crane 24 Winch 11 Digger Derrick/Auger 10 Wood Shredder 9 Western Fire Package 5 Mobil Drill 3 Trencher 2 Man Basket 2 Forklift 2 Cable Plow 2 Dump Bed 1 Tree Spade 1 Sludge Pump 1 Brush Cutter
Comparison Unimog/Attachment Sales (Detail) 1975 - 1983 Ratio Unimog Sales Implement/Attachment Sales Unimog/Attachment 441 697 1 : 1.58
Unimog Use by Business
Federal, State, County and Municipal Departments 39% Contractors 15% Utility and Telephone Companies 11% Airports 10% Railroads 10% Agriculture 7% Others 8% PAGE 37 LEVEL 1 - 12 OF 169 ITEMS TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/08/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.) TEXT: Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573 This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.
The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.
Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.
Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.
December 7, 1983 Dear Mr. Kratzke:
Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).
I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.
I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager
BDT:csy |
|
ID: 07-002489--6 Jun 07--rlsOpenMr. Gary R. Greib Manager, Product Investigations and Safety Affairs Delphi Corporation 5825 Delphi Drive Troy, MI 48098-2815 Dear Mr. Greib: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. You ask whether your companys Passenger Occupant Detection System (PODS) and certain interior electronics and switches must meet this standard if installed on a new vehicle. Based on the information you provided to the agency and the analysis below, our answer is that any material within 13 millimeters (mm) of and incorporated into a component listed in S4.1 of Standard No. 302 would be subject to that standards flammability requirements. Some, but not all, of the components of the PODS system and interior components you ask about would be subject to the standard. Delphis Passenger Occupant Detection System (PODS) You explain that the PODS consists of a silicone filled bladder, Electronic Control Unit (ECU), pressure sensor, and a Belt Tension Sensor (BTS). In the picture of the PODS that you provided with your letter, it appears that the bladder is located directly beneath and in contact with the seat cushion. You further state that the ECU and pressure sensor are attached to the bottom (underside) of the seat pan and/or frame. We assume, based on your picture, that the BTS is connected to the seat belt. You ask several questions about the applicability of FMVSS No. 302 to the PODS, which we will answer in turn. 1) Does NHTSA consider the PODS bladder to be part of the seat cushion? Our answer is yes, for the purposes of FMVSS No. 302, and that we would likely consider the PODS bladder subject to the standard. S4.2 of FMVSS No. 302 states that any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space shall meet the flammability requirements. S4.1 further specifies which portions of materials shall meet the flammability requirements by listing a number of components of vehicle occupant compartments, specifically: seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and 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. Thus, for example, an intact seat cushion would not be tested for flammability, but rather a section including the surface of the seat cushion exposed to the occupant compartment air space and all the material within 13 mm of that surface. NHTSA has long interpreted these provisions to mean that a material is subject to FMVSS No. 302s flammability requirements if it is within 13 millimeters of a surface of a component listed in S4.1 and is incorporated into the listed component. Examples of incorporated components include a cable harness permanently attached to a seat cushion or seat back by electronic cables built into the seats internal foam,[1] an air bladder that is attached to a mattress cover,[2] and other materials that are intimately joined with a listed material.[3] It appears from the pictures you sent that the PODS bladder is incorporated into the seat cushion. Therefore, if any portion of the PODS bladder is within 13 mm of a surface of the seat cushion exposed to the occupant compartment air space, and it appears from the pictures you sent that a portion would be, we would consider that portion of the PODS subject to FMVSS No. 302s testing requirements. 2) Are PODS components (ECU and pressure sensor) that are attached to the bottom (underside) of the seat pan and/or frame considered part of the seat cushion? It does not appear from your pictures that the ECU and pressure sensor are within 13 mm of a surface of a listed component or incorporated into a listed component. Therefore, we would likely not consider the ECU and pressure sensor to be subject to FMVSS No. 302. However, we cannot make a conclusive interpretation without more precise information. 3) Is the area/space underneath the seat considered part of the occupant compartment airspace? Yes, we would consider this area to be part of the occupant compartment airspace, because it normally contains refreshable air. 4) Are components within that space required to meet FMVSS302? If they are components listed in S4.1, or if they are within 13 mm of a surface of and incorporated into such components, they would be subject to FMVSS No. 302. Delphis Interior Electronics and Switch Components Your letter also described certain Delphi electronics and switches that are exposed to the occupant compartment airspace. You stated that they are not specifically called out in Section 4.1 and are not designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. You asked that we confirm that these types of electronics and switches are excluded from the FMVSS302 requirement. As discussed below, some of these electronics and switches would be subject to the standard. 1) Interior display monitors The picture included with your letter for this question shows the interior of a vehicle from the rear, looking toward the front. Interior display monitors are depicted installed in the front dash, in both head restraints for the front seats, and in the vehicle ceiling (a drop- or fold-down monitor). As discussed above, if the monitor is within 13 millimeters of and incorporated into a listed component, we would consider it subject to FMVSS No. 302s flammability requirements. Head restraints and the front dash[4] are components subject to the standard. Based on your picture, it would therefore appear that display monitors embedded in head restraints and the front dash are subject to the flammability requirements, but drop-down monitors or those installed in the ceiling would not be. 2) Door trim mounted switches The picture included for this question shows what appears to be the front drivers side door viewed from inside the vehicle, and depicts the door trim with embedded door release handle and various mounted switches. We would consider the switches to be incorporated into the door trim; therefore, if they are within 13 mm of the door trim surface, which they appear to be, we would consider them subject to the flammability requirements. 3) Steering wheel mounted switches The picture included for this question shows a close-up view of the front surface of a steering wheel, and depicts several switches embedded in the center panel of the steering wheel, close to the outer curved section. Because a steering wheel is designed to include padding elements that absorb energy in the event of a crash, we would consider switches mounted in it to be subject to FMVSS No. 302s flammability requirements. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:302 d.10/19/07 |
2007 |
ID: 08-003275 Well convertible topOpenMs. Mary Well California Suntops 3309 Ladrillo Aisle Irvine, CA 92606 Dear Ms. Well: This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to fabric used to manufacture convertible tops. You explain that your company will be manufacturing the fabric. 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. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). 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. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term motor vehicle equipment in relevant part as follows: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; [or] any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle ..." (49 U.S.C. 30102). This definition includes a convertible top, since convertible tops are components manufactured and sold either as original equipment on new vehicles or as a replacement or improvement of the convertible top. Since a convertible top is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer of the convertible top must ensure that the convertible tops comply with all applicable FMVSSs and contain no safety-related defects. Keep in mind that there is no FMVSS that applies to the fabric only. However, as explained below, there are requirements that apply to convertible tops, and the characteristics of the fabric would affect the convertible tops compliance with those requirements. Convertible Tops for New Vehicles If the convertible top were added to a new vehicle, i.e., before the vehicle is sold for the first time to a consumer, then it must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR 571.302). FMVSS No. 302 applies to certain vehicle occupant compartment components, including convertible tops, on new completed motor vehicles. Persons selling new vehicles equipped with the convertible top made from your fabric must ensure that the vehicles, including the top with your fabric, conform to FMVSS No. 302. There are other FMVSSs that apply to convertible tops, such as aspects of FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact (49 CFR 571.201). The vehicle manufacturer using your fabric would have to certify compliance of the vehicle with FMVSS No. 302, No. 201, and with all other applicable FMVSS. The manufacturer might ask you for information that would assist it in making its certification, such as the burn rate of your fabric when subjected to FMVSS No. 302 test procedures. Nonetheless, the manufacturer would be responsible for ensuring that its reliance on your assurances were reasonable and that the assurances were bona fide. Also, our requirement that the vehicle must be free of safety related defects has a bearing on the materials used in the manufacture of the vehicle. For Used Vehicles If your fabric were used to manufacture convertible tops for use in used vehicles (i.e., vehicles previously purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale), the fabric need not meet FMVSS No. 302. FMVSS No. 302 only applies to new vehicles. However, you should be aware of 30122 of the Safety Act. That section specifies: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard ... The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 302. Installation of an item that degraded the flammability resistance of a vehicle may subject the commercial entity to penalties for violating 30122. Again, the Safety Act requires all vehicle and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products contain no defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, the manufacturer of the convertible tops would be obligated to recall and remedy convertible tops that are determined to contain a safety related defect, even if the convertible tops were installed by the vehicle owners themselves. Other Considerations State or local jurisdictions have their own traffic safety laws which could affect the flammability resistance of certain items. For information about those requirements, you should contact the State departments of motor vehicles. You also mentioned private tort liability. For information on that matter, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier. I hope this information is helpful. Enclosed is an information sheet describing generally your responsibilities under the Safety Act. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:302 d.11/20/08 |
2008 |
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.