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: nht93-8.25OpenDATE: November 22, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Bob Carver -- Wayne Wheeled Vehicles TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/01/93 Est. from Bob Carver (OCC-9218) TEXT: This responds to your letter in which you referred to this agency's final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, dated November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). Specifically, you referred to S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS 217, as amended, and asked whether it was necessary to outline an emergency roof exit with retroreflective tape even though the tape would not be visible unless the bus is tilted on its side. You also asked whether the tape width requirement will be changed to 1 inch. As you correctly quoted in your letter, S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS 217, as amended by our final rule of November 2, 1992, provides: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1. The plain language of this provision requires every school bus emergency exit required by the standard to be outlined by the retroreflective tape, including required roof exits. No exceptions are provided in the standard. I note that the November 1992 final rule required additional emergency exits for school buses, but provided manufacturers various options from which to choose. Roof exits were specified as one option because of their potential safety benefits in rollover situations where the bus comes to rest on its side. Further, roof exits could also serve as potential exit routes where other exit routes were either unavailable or inoperative. The retroreflective tape requirement was intended to increase the conspicuity of emergency exits in low-light situations. In a situation where a bus is resting on its side, the increased conspicuity of a roof exit could be critical for safety. With regard to the width of the tape, we proposed a 1-inch retroreflective tape in the NPRM. However, in the final rule that 1 inch measurement was inadvertently converted to 3 cm rather than the correct 2.5 cm. We are in the process of issuing a technical amendment to the final rule which will specify that the tape must be not less than 2.5 cm (1 inch) in width rather than 3 cm. I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht95-2.4OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: March 16, 1995 FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Harry C. Gough -- P. E., State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/28/94 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS D. TURNER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/7/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS D. TURNER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 11/18/94 LETTER FROM HARRY C. GOUGH TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TEXT: Dear Mr. Gough: This responds to your letter to this office asking whether the retroreflective tape required to outline school bus emergency exits can, in the case of the rear emergency door, be placed on the door itself. The short answer is no. You stated that the State of Connecticut requires that school bus bumpers be black. You further stated that one school bus manufacturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of the retroreflective tape installed on the rear bumper. You then noticed that a number of school buses from a different manufacturer had the bottom part of the tape installed on the door itself. You asked whether the language of S5.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window reten tion and release, permitted the installation of the retroreflective tape on the door itself. Paragraph S5.5.3 of FMVSS No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) provides: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, . . . . This requirement was imposed by amendment to FMVSS No. 217 promulgated by a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). In discussing this requirement in the preamble portion of the final rule, we said at 57 FR 49421: Accordingly, the final rule requires a minimum 1 inch wide strip of retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, to be placed around the outside perimeter of the emergency exit opening, not the emergency exit itself (emphasis added). As you may know, the buses with the tape on the emergency exit doors have been recalled by the manufacturer. For information about the recall, you can contact the bus manufacturer, Thomas Built Buses, P. O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261. Enclosed for your information are two interpretative letters issued by this office on related issues pertaining to the retroreflective tape requirement. See letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, dated July 7, 1993; and letter to Mr. Turner dated March 28, 1994. I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
|
ID: nht95-3.52OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 25, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive And Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Department of the Army TITLE: NONE TEXT: Dear Mr. Overbay: This letter follows up a telephone conversation between Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff and Mr. John Hretz of the U.S. Department of the Army in which Mr. Hretz requested a clarification of a February 17, 1995, letter that we sent to you. In that letter, w e discussed the testing of air braked vehicles under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. We explained that, as a result of a court decision, the emergency stopping test requirements, set forth in S5.7.1 of the standa rd, are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers. As Mr. Glancy explained, subsequent to that letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule reinstating emergency stopping tests in FMVSS No. 121. The amendments reinstating these tests take effect on March 1, 1997 , for truck tractors and March 1, 1998, for other medium and heavy vehicles that are equipped with air brakes. Once these amendments take effect, the provisions in S5.7.1 will again be applicable to air braked vehicles. Mr. Hretz asked whether, in conducting the emergency stopping distance tests, removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test. Your question is addressed below. Section S5.7.1 states that When stopped six times for each combination of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1, except for a loaded truck tractor with an unbraked control trailer, on a road surface having a PFC of 0.9, with a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake chamber housing), the vehicle shall stop at least once in not more than the distance specified in Column 5 of Table II. In describing the failure conditions for which stopping distance requirements must be met, S5.7.1 broadly specifies "a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid," except for certain listed part s. It is our opinion that the failure mode Mr. Hretz described in which one disconnects the service air signal line at the rear service air relay comes within this language. Therefore, a vehicle would not comply with FMVSS No. 121 if it did not meet th e specified stopping distance requirements after disconnection of the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht95-5.31OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 25, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive And Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Department of the Army TITLE: NONE TEXT: Dear Mr. Overbay: This letter follows up a telephone conversation between Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff and Mr. John Hretz of the U.S. Department of the Army in which Mr. Hretz requested a clarification of a February 17, 1995, letter that we sent to you. In that letter, we discussed the testing of air braked vehicles under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. We explained that, as a result of a court decision, the emergency stopping test requirements, set forth in S5.7.1 of the standard, are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers. As Mr. Glancy explained, subsequent to that letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule reinstating emergency stopping tests in FMVSS No. 121. The amendments reinstating these tests take effect on March 1, 1997, for truck tractors and March 1, 1998, for other medium and heavy vehicles that are equipped with air brakes. Once these amendments take effect, the provisions in S5.7.1 will again be applicable to air braked vehicles. Mr. Hretz asked whether, in conducting the emergency stopping distance tests, removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test. Your question is addressed below. Section S5.7.1 states that When stopped six times for each combination of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1, except for a loaded truck tractor with an unbraked control trailer, on a road surface having a PFC of 0.9, with a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake chamber housing), the vehicle shall stop at least once in not more than the distance specified in Column 5 of Table II. In describing the failure conditions for which stopping distance requirements must be met, S5.7.1 broadly specifies "a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid," except for certain listed parts. It is our opinion that the failure mode Mr. Hretz described in which one disconnects the service air signal line at the rear service air relay comes within this language. Therefore, a vehicle would not comply with FMVSS No. 121 if it did not meet the specified stopping distance requirements after disconnection of the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 9355Open Ms. Jane L. Dawson Dear Ms Dawson: This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed two questions regarding interpretation of certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Your first question related to the definition of "daylight opening" found in the final rule amending FMVSS 217, dated November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) (hereinafter Final Rule). Specifically, you asked what constitutes an obstruction and how close does it have to be to the exit to be considered an obstruction. The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." This refers to the total area of the opening, whether the door or window is open or closed. An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with in any way that opening or any access thereto, as viewed from the middle aisle of the bus. For example, the seatback of a nearby seat that protrudes into the area perpendicular to the plane of the opening would constitute such an obstruction. In your second question you referred to the current provisions of S5.2.3.1(b), FMVSS 217, which provides that a left-side emergency door must be located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. You then asked whether that requirement was changed in the Final Rule. The answer is yes. S5.2.3.1, as amended in the Final Rule, provides manufacturers two options for the provision of school bus emergency exits, S5.2.3.1(a) (Option A) and S5.2.3.1(b) (Option B). Option A requires a rear emergency door and, in the sequence of choices for providing the additional emergency exit area, the first specifies a left side door that is required by S5.2.3.2(a)(2) to be located at the midpoint of the bus. Option B requires a left-side emergency door and a pushout rear window, but does not designate a specific location for them. Thus, the locations of exits other than the left side door specified in S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) are left to the various design options of the manufacturers and their customers. I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief counsel
ref:217 d:4/1/94 |
1994 |
ID: 004609-asOpenMr. Dennis J. Tualej Nu-Way Intermodal Services, Inc. 220 Roger Avenue Westfield, NJ 07090 Dear Mr. Tualej: This responds to your letter seeking clarification as to the appropriate maximum load markings and inflation pressures on the sidewall of truck tires. You asked if differing markings on similar tires provided to you by different suppliers are acceptable. As discussed below, our review of the sample markings set forth in your letter leads us to conclude that the first marking you cited conforms to the requirements of our tire safety standards, while the second marking does not conform. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, each manufacturer must self-certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards prior to sale. FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars sets forth, among other things, labeling requirements for tires for use on trucks. Of relevance here, the maximum load rating and corresponding cold tire inflation pressure marking requirements are provided in FMVSS No. 119 paragraphs S6.5(d) and S6.6, as described below. Paragraph S6.5(d) of the standard requires that the truck tires be marked on each sidewall with, among other things, the maximum load rating and corresponding cold inflation pressure for the particular tire. This information must be shown as follows: (Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. (Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Paragraph S6.6 of the standard sets forth requirements concerning how to determine the numerical values for the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure. That provision directs the manufacturer to use a maximum load not lower than the lowest maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure for the particular tire size contained in a current publication from one of the following entities: (a) The Tire and Rim Association; (b) The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation; (c) Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association, Inc.; (d) Deutsche Industrie Norm; (e) British Standards Institution; (f) Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization, and (g) The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia Turning to the specific examples cited in your letter, you asked which of two maximum load ratings and corresponding inflation pressures for 10.00-20 14 Bias Ply Tires is accurate. These markings, supplied by two tire manufacturers, differed in two ways: (1) they employed different syntaxes, and (2) the maximum load rating values were different. We have restated the content of these two tire markings below: (1) Max load single 2800 kg (6175 lb) at 690 kPa (100 psi) cold. Max load dual 2430 kg (5355 lb) at 620 kPa (90 psi) cold; (2) Max load single 6040 lb at 105 psi cold. Max load dual 5300 lb at 95 psi cold. In terms of format, because the tires you ask about are dual load tires, they must be marked so as to be consistent with the format specified in S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119 (i.e., Max load single __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.). Thus, in terms of syntax, marking #1 is consistent with the applicable requirement, whereas marking #2 is not. In terms of content, the values recited in marking #1 correspond to the maximum load ratings for a 10.00-20 14 Bias Ply Tire assigned by the Tire and Rim Association, one of the tire industry organizations whose tire-load tables is incorporated by reference in our standard. Therefore, the values provided in marking #1 would be appropriate for inclusion in the required marking on the tire sidewall. As to marking #2, in order to conform to paragraph S6.6, the maximum load rating values must not be lower than the lowest maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure for the particular tire size in one of the specified publications. The lowest such maximum load rating for 10.00-20 14 Bias Ply Tires for single tire application is 5842 lbs, as listed in the Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization 2006 Year Book, and the lowest such maximum load rating for dual tire application is 5346 lbs, as listed by the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association (JATMA). While the single tire application rating in marking #2 (6040 lbs) is not lower than the lowest allowable single tire load rating, the dual tire application rating (5300 lbs) is lower than the lowest allowed rating. As both the single and the dual maximum load rating values must comply with paragraph S6.6, marking #2 is not in conformity with that paragraph. We hope that the above information will assist you in advising your customers. If you have any additional questions about this matter, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel d.3/8/07 ref:119 |
2007 |
ID: 06-003937drnOpenC. Timothy Parker, Assistant Director Department of Facilities and Transportation Services Office of Transportation Services Fairfax County Public Schools 8101 Lorton Road Lorton, VA 22079 Dear Mr. Parker: This responds to your request for an interpretation as to whether additional optional red and amber warning lights for the left and right sides of a school bus you are considering for the Commonwealth of Virginia would be allowed on new school buses. Our answer is no. In your letter, you state that Fairfax County Public Schools is seeking state approval in Virginia to test the additional warning lights. You explain that there are a high number of bus stops at or near intersections where motorists approaching from the right or left of a school bus do not see the warning lamps or stop sign on the school bus. You note that lamps currently specified for school buses are all aimed towards the traffic approaching from the front and rear only. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards. FMVSS No. 108 specifies motor vehicle lighting equipment required for all motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 108 requires at S5.1.4 that school buses (other than multifunction school activity buses) shall meet one of two options. The first option is to have a system of four red signal lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed in accordance with that standard. The second option is to have the four red signal lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887 (July 1964) plus four amber signal lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887 except for their color and a candlepower at least 2 times that specified for red signal lamps. Both the red and amber lamps are installed in accordance with SAE Standard J887, with exceptions specified at S5.1.4(b)(i) and (ii). We have addressed the issue of optional red and amber warning lights for the left and right sides of a school bus in an interpretation letter of May 22, 2003, to Mr. J. Adam Krugh, IV, inventor of the ALLSTOP (copy enclosed). The ALLSTOP is a traffic control device developed for school buses, intended to be used to warn drivers at intersections of the presence of children. In that letter, we stated that: As we have said before, traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly and unhesitatingly recognize the meaning lamps convey and respond to them. The required school bus signal lamp system provides an important and standardized message. It is our opinion that the addition of a novel signal lamp that rises at the same time as the school bus signal lamp system activates would divert a drivers attention from the required signal lamps and cause confusion with respect to their meaning, and thereby impair the effectiveness of the required lamps. Under Standard No. 108, non-standard lighting equipment is prohibited on new vehicles if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 (See S.5.1.3). In addition, with respect to the aftermarket, 49 U.S.C. 30122 has the effect of requiring that the installation of any aftermarket vehicle lamp, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, must not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 108. With regard to the additional left and right side lights you ask about, we believe that they could similarly divert a drivers attention from the required signal lamps and confuse drivers as to whether they are meant to stop, partly because the lights would add an unfamiliar dimension to a standardized system. Also, the placement of the red lights near the front of the bus (as depicted in your letter) could cause confusion as to the orientation of the vehicle, thus impairing the effectiveness of the color code of the required side marker lamps. Please note that the make inoperative provision does not apply to owners making changes to their vehicles. Thus, changes made by Fairfax County employees to school buses owned by the County would not be affected by the make inoperative provision. However, we would urge owners not to degrade the safety features of their vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d.10/4/06 |
2006 |
ID: 15319.jegOpenMr. Ottar Cato Olsen Dear Mr. Olsen: This responds to your letter, addressed to Paul Atelsek of my staff, asking several questions about our safety standards. I apologize for the delay in our response. You first ask about a proposed design for a passenger air bag (PAB) on-off switch for "two seat cars." You state:
The proposed solution for deactivating the PAB is as follows:
It is only possible to change the PAB status when the ignition key is in the start position. You asked whether this system would meet NHTSA's requirements, and whether this agency has "any lamp display that PIVCO can use for the deactivated PAB." By way of background information, NHTSA has established specific requirements for passenger air bag manual cut-off devices. These requirements are set forth in S4.5.4 of Standard No. 208. I have enclosed a copy of that section revised as of October 1, 1996, and a final rule published on January 6, 1997 (Docket 74-14, Notice 109) which amended that section. As you will see, your proposed design would not meet the requirements of S4.5.4. For example, it would not meet the requirement specified in S4.5.4.2 that a passenger air bag manual cut-off device must be separate from the ignition switch for the vehicle, "so that the driver must take some action with the ignition key other than inserting it or turning it in the ignition switch to deactivate the passenger air bag." Also, it would not meet the requirement in S4.5.4.3 that the telltale light be located on the dashboard. As to your question concerning whether this agency has "any lamp display that PIVCO can use for the deactivated PAB," S4.5.4 includes several requirements for the display. Among other things, S4.5.4.3 specifies that the telltale must be yellow, and must have the identifying words "AIR BAG OFF" on the telltale or within 25 millimeters of the telltale. You next ask when the "new FMVSS 201" will influence PIVCO. You state that PIVCO is a small car manufacturer, with only one vehicle line, producing 5,000 cars a year. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact was amended by a final rule published on August 18, 1995 (62 FR 16718). This final rule, which established new requirements for head protection, was amended by a notice published on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718). The standard provides manufacturers with four phase-in options for meeting its requirements. These phase-in options are not dependent on the number of vehicles produced by a manufacturer. Options one and two, found in S6.1.1. and S6.1.2 of the Standard, provide that certain percentages of production manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 must meet the new requirements. The third option, found in S6.1.3 of the Standard, states that manufacturers need not produce any complying vehicles before September 1, 1999 but that all vehicles produced on or after that date must comply. This option, which provides longer lead time than the first two options, was intended to accommodate manufacturers with limited product lines. The fourth option is applicable only to final stage manufacturers. The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." If PIVCO is a "final stage manufacturer," it need not produce any vehicles that comply before September 1, 2002. However, all vehicles manufactured on or after that date must comply. There is no exclusion from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) based upon the volume produced by the manufacturer. All motor vehicles must comply with all FMVSS, unless the agency has exempted them from one or more of the standards. NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30113 to exempt, on a temporary basis, a manufacturer whose total yearly production does not exceed 10,000 motor vehicles, from any FMVSS that would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship were it required to meet it immediately. The application procedures for such an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(a). The applicant must not only show hardship, but also that it has tried in good faith to meet the standard from which it requests relief. Finally, you ask about contact persons within NHTSA. You ask whether it is OK for all communications between PIVCO and NHTSA to go through Mr. Atelsek, and whether there is any other way of communicating with NHTSA, e.g., by fax or e-mail. In communicating with NHTSA, PIVCO should contact the specific office or person for which it has relevant questions or other business, to the extent it has the knowledge to do so. Requests for legal interpretation should be sent to Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC 20590 (FAX 202-366-3820). Questions regarding Standard 208 should be directed to Mr. Edward Glancy (eglancy@nhtsa.dot.gov). Inquiries about Standard 201 should be directed to Mr. Otto Matheke (omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov). Sincerely, John Womack Enclosures |
1997 |
ID: 21331ogmOpen
Ms. Ann Spink Re: Replacement Parts Crashworthiness Dear Ms. Spink: This responds to your letter to Mr. Clive Van Orden regarding the use of aftermarket parts in collision repairs. I apologize for the delay in responding. As your company is a body repair business, you are concerned about the possible safety consequences of aftermarket crash parts. You have attached an article from a trade publication in which Mr. Clarence Ditlow is quoted as saying that while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) "polices the safety of all aftermarket parts by ordering recalls where necessary, no federal agency polices the quality of aftermarket parts." You further state that it is your belief that NHTSA does not have regulatory authority over any "stand-alone" part except for lights and does not regulate crash parts. You then ask if NHTSA is in fact regulating aftermarket crash parts and if the statement attributed to Mr. Ditlow is correct. In order to further understand NHTSA's authority and activities in relation to aftermarket crash parts, you ask five questions:
NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards for both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Most Federal motor vehicle safety standards (F.M.V.S.S.) issued by the agency apply only to new vehicles. However, certain standards apply to parts and equipment, whether they are installed in new vehicles or sold in the aftermarket. Examples of these standards are Standard No. 106, Brake hoses; Standard No. 108, Lamps; reflective devices, and associated equipment; Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires; Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids; Standard No. 205, Glazing materials; and Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover replacement equipment (e.g. brake hoses, lights) apply to sheet metal or other replacement body parts. The defect provisions we administer apply to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment, including aftermarket equipment to which standards do not apply. Under Section 30118 of Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30118), if a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. Thus NHTSA has the authority to order recalls of aftermarket crash parts, whether they are made by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) by an independent parts manufacturer. However, NHTSA has not done so to date, because we have not discovered any information that has indicated that any particular aftermarket crash product contains a safety-related defect. You may be interested to know that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) addressed the issue of possible adverse safety aspects of the use of non-original equipment manufacturer (OEM) replacement sheet metal components in some detail in 1990-91. OVSC sent interrogatory letters on this subject to the three major domestic automobile manufacturers, seeking test data as well as the answers to questions. The agency's concern was that replacement sheet metal components, such as fenders, hoods, and doors, could possibly reduce the crash protection provided by a vehicle. Although all three manufacturers indicated concern about this issue, none produced any test data in response to NHTSA's original inquiry. Ford Motor Company (Ford) reported that it had performed some studies on non-OEM replacement part fit and finish, structural quality, and corrosion. Ford stated that these tests indicated that the parts were not equivalent to original equipment, but also reported that it had not conducted any tests for compliance of replacement parts with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). General Motors Corporation stated that it had not performed any safety testing on non-OEM crash parts. Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) representatives met with OVSC on this issue and subsequently conducted limited testing to observe the effectiveness of an offshore manufactured hood with respect to a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 219 -- Windshield Zone Intrusion. No windshield zone intrusion was noted during the test. During this inquiry, NHTSA also received a letter from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a private not-for-profit organization established by the insurance industry, which described testing that IIHS sponsored in 1987 on a Ford Escort with cosmetic body parts (such as the grill, left and right front fenders and front door sheet metal) removed and a "competitive hood" installed. IIHS reported that the vehicle complied with FMVSS Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301 by a wide margin, and concluded that the data clearly showed that the use of cosmetic body parts, whether made by an OEM or a "competitive factory," did not affect the safety performance of the vehicle. If you have any further questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Sincerely, Frank Seales, Jr. ref:misc. |
2001 |
ID: nht78-3.5OpenDATE: 02/22/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA TO: Asthi Glass Company, Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your inquiry of January 23, 1978. Speedometer covers on motorcycles are not subject to FMVSS No. 205. |
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.