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: nht75-1.45OpenDATE: 10/06/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Joseph Lucas North America, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 29, 1975, asking whether two of your processes for labeling brake hose may be considered "permanent" for purposes of Standard No. 106-74. As used in our standards and regulations, the requirement for a "permanent" label generally contemplates a label that will remain legible for the expected life of the product under normal conditions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects a manufacturer to make a reasonable, good-faith determination in this respect. The two labeling samples that you submitted as examples of your processes appear to be permanent. We are presently re-examining the requirement for permanent labeling of brake hose, and a Federal Register notice in this area may be issued shortly. Yours truly, ATTACH. May 29, 1975 Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Sir: BRAKE HOSE LABELING METHODS Although we have previously corresponded with you on the subject of brake hose labeling (see attached copy letters: JLNA of September 30, 1974 and NHTSA of October 10, 1974), this present letter seeks your opinion specifically on the method of labeling. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106 requires that brake hoses be permanently labeled, but we know of no standard against which this permanence can be measured. We wish to continue using hydraulic brake hoses with a "herringbone" surface pattern. Samples are enclosed. Two methods of labeling are available to us and we hope that you approve both. Method 1. The Hot Foil Process. Our hoses have always used this process and these hoses have been certified by independent laboratories, the AAMVA and Pennsylvania as complying with regulations. "Hot Foil" marking is a transfer process in which a heated platten with the legend embossed on it is pressed through a plastic foil on to the rubber hose after the herringbone pattern has been formed and after the rubber hose has been cured (vulcanized). This transfers the legend in plastic foil to the hose. Sample X attached was labeled in this way. Method 2. Offset Printing. In this process, the legend in ink is applied to the hose after extrusion, but before the "herringbone" surface is formed and before the hose is cured. We understand this process is common for such applications in the USA. Sample Y attached was labeled in this way. Since both of these methods are established processes for the purpose of labeling brake hoses, we hope that you will give your approval to them in principle as being acceptable means for "permanent" marking. Yours truly, JOSEPH LUCAS NORTH AMERICA INC. -- A. G. Burgess, Vice President (Technical) Enclosures: Letters (2); Hose X; Hose Y; cc: F. Redler, with enclosures September 30, 1974 Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Sir: GIRLING HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSE Girling Limited of Birmingham, England are assemblers of hydraulic brake hoses. These are sold as original equipment primarily to vehicle manufacturers in the United Kingdom. Some of these vehicles are exported to the United States. Joseph Lucas North America Inc., imports Girling brake hoses for sale as service replacements in the USA. Two samples of a 1/8" hydraulic brake hose are enclosed for your examination and confirmation that the markings are in accordance with FMVSS 106. Yours truly, JOSEPH LUCAS NORTH AMERICA INC. -- A. J. Burgess, Vice President (Technical) Enclosures: 2 hoses. |
|
ID: nht95-5.13OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 28, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Jeffrey S. Bakst, Esq -- Attorney at Law TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 12/6/95 letter from Jeffrey S. Bakst to Dorothy Nakama (occ 11412) TEXT: This responds to your request for the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on two questions related to litigation in which you are currently involved, that refer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. The two questions and our responses are set out below. You advise us that you are "dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988." You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that in December 1990, your client was injured while driving the Dodge Ram truck. You fu rther informed Ms. Nakama that our October 26, 1995 interpretation letter to Hugh Bode, Esq. addressed Mr. Bode's questions stemming from the same accident and lawsuit as yours. Question 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a ma nufacturer do for the purchaser? The answer to the first part of this question is yes. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(c): A manufacturer of a motor vehicle . . . shall notify [NHTSA] by certified mail, and the owners purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle . . . if the manufacturer -- (1) learns the vehicle contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety . . . Under 49 U.S.C. @ 30120, where such notification is required, the manufacturer "shall remedy the defect . . . without charge when the vehicle is presented for remedy." The vehicle manufacturer may choose to remedy the defect by repairing the vehicle, rep lacing it with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. The requirement that the remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than eight years prior to the manufacturer's defect determination. Question 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from th e accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fail to comply with FMVSS 124? The relevant portion of FMVSS No. 124 (S5.1) provides as follows: There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating fo rce. Under the standard, with either energy source severed or disconnected, the standard requires that the remaining energy source return the throttle to the idle position within the specified time from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver re moves the opposing actuating force. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (at (202) 366-2832), is the office within NHTSA which has the authority to investigate whether there is a noncompliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are not in a position to render an o pinion as to whether the facts you describe indicate the existence of a safety-related defect. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our October 26, 1995 letter to Hugh J. Bode, Esq. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht73-4.16OpenDATE: 05/03/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: AM General Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 22, 1973, concerning the conformity of buses manufactured by AM General Corporation with paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release." Your letter states, enclosing a drawing, that the side sash construction in these buses includes an aluminum tie bar that connects the upper and lower portion of the sash, and is located on the inside and at the center of the glass. You state this configuration precludes testing as specified in S5.1.1, which specifies that the head form applying the load be placed at the center of the glazing. You request that the standard be revised to permit testing with the head form located as close as possible to the center of the glazing. Based on the information you have provided, we are of the opinion that the configuration of this window should be treated under paragraph S5.1 as two separate windows, even though only one sheet of window glazing is used. The tie bar appears to be an integral part of the window sash, and by preventing an occupant from contacting the window at that point, performs essentially the same function as a conventional divider strip. Consequently, we would expect to test this window configuration by applying the head form to the center of each half of the glazing surface. Yours Truly, AM General Corporation March 22, 1973 FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS (49 CFR PART 571) MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217 "BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE" Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration AM General Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Motors Corporation, is in the process of designing a transit bus for use by Transit Authorities in the United States. The side window sash and rear window sash construction is so designed as to make it virtually impossible to conform to the required test procedure described in FMVSS No. 217 - Bus Window Retention and Release. Paragraph S5.1.1 states: "An increasing force shall be applied to the window glazing through the head form specified in Figure 4, outward and perpendicular to the undisturbed inside surface at the center of each sheet of window glazing, with a head form travel of 2 inches per minute." AM General's side sash construction is as depicted on the enclosed AMG Drawing No. 5955931. Your attention is directed to the center of the glazing which reflects that at this location you will find an aluminum "tie bar" which connects the upper and lower portion of the aluminum sash. Since this "tie bar" is an integral functional item and its location is at the center of the glazing, but not integral with respect to the glazing, it is obvious that it precludes testing according to the aforementioned test procedure of Paragraph S5.1.1. Therefore, AM General requests clarification whether it is permitted by this standard to locate the contact of the head form as close as possible to the normal center of the glazing, without coming in contact with the "tie bar," as shown on the enclosed drawing. Should this procedure not be allowed under the current Standard No. 217, AM General requests that the requirement be revised to permit an option to test with the head form located as close as possible to the normal center of the glazing. A similar sash type rear window with a positive lock mechanism and with a "tie bar" as herein described will be used; and it is, therefore, requested that the offset(Illegible Word) be approved or revision to the standard apply also to rear windows. We respectfully request your prompt attention and reply. Should you require additional information pertaining to our design, do not hesitate to call on us. Sincerely, F. A. Stewart Vice President Safety & Reliability Enclosure Copy to Docket Section |
|
ID: nht95-7.68OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 28, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Jeffrey S. Bakst, Esq -- Attorney at Law TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 12/6/95 letter from Jeffrey S. Bakst to Dorothy Nakama (occ 11412) TEXT: This responds to your request for the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on two questions related to litigation in which you are currently involved, that refer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. The two questions and our responses are set out below. You advise us that you are "dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988." You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that in December 1990, your client was injured while driving the Dodge Ram truck. You further informed Ms. Nakama that our October 26, 1995 interpretation letter to Hugh Bode, Esq. addressed Mr. Bode's questions stemming from the same accident and lawsuit as yours. Question 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser? The answer to the first part of this question is yes. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(c): A manufacturer of a motor vehicle . . . shall notify [NHTSA] by certified mail, and the owners purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle . . . if the manufacturer -- (1) learns the vehicle contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety . . . Under 49 U.S.C. @ 30120, where such notification is required, the manufacturer "shall remedy the defect . . . without charge when the vehicle is presented for remedy." The vehicle manufacturer may choose to remedy the defect by repairing the vehicle, replacing it with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. The requirement that the remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than eight years prior to the manufacturer's defect determination. Question 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fail to comply with FMVSS 124? The relevant portion of FMVSS No. 124 (S5.1) provides as follows: There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. Under the standard, with either energy source severed or disconnected, the standard requires that the remaining energy source return the throttle to the idle position within the specified time from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (at (202) 366-2832), is the office within NHTSA which has the authority to investigate whether there is a noncompliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are not in a position to render an opinion as to whether the facts you describe indicate the existence of a safety-related defect. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our October 26, 1995 letter to Hugh J. Bode, Esq. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.
|
|
ID: 11357Open Mr. Patrick Holmes Dear Mr. Holmes: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, if you manufacture a motorcycle helmet for personal use, and ensure that your helmet meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 Motorcycle helmets, you may certify the helmet. Subject to qualifications explained below, the answer is yes. NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the FMVSSs is Standard No. 218. In 49 U.S.C. section 30115, a self-certification system is established whereby the vehicle or equipment manufacturer is responsible for exercising "reasonable care" in certifying the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. Section 30115 states: "A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect." I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities for manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note the discussion on page two concerning manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, as noted on page two, Part 566 of our regulations requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., motorcycle helmets) to submit identifying information to NHTSA, with a description of the items they produce. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 and of Standard No. 218 for your information. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:218 d:12/8/95
|
1995 |
ID: nht95-4.98OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 8, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Patrick Holmes TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 10/01/95 letter (est) from Patrick Holmes to whom it may concern (occ 11357) TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, if you manufacture a motorcycle helmet for personal use, and ensure that your helmet meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 Motorcycle helmets, you may certify the helmet. Subject to qualifications explained below, the answer is yes. NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the FMVSSs is Standard No. 218. In 49 U.S.C. section 30115, a self-certification system is estab lished whereby the vehicle or equipment manufacturer is responsible for exercising "reasonable care" in certifying the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. Section 30115 states: "A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect." I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities for manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note the discussion on page two concerning manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, as noted on page two, Part 566 of our regulations requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., motorcycle helmets) to submit identifying informatio n to NHTSA, with a description of the items they produce. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 and of Standard No. 218 for your information. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Enclosures omitted. |
|
ID: nht95-7.55OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 8, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Patrick Holmes TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 10/01/95 letter (est) from Patrick Holmes to whom it may concern (occ 11357) TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, if you manufacture a motorcycle helmet for personal use, and ensure that your helmet meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 Motorcycle helmets, you may certify the helmet. Subject to qualifications explained below, the answer is yes. NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the FMVSSs is Standard No. 218. In 49 U.S.C. section 30115, a self-certification system is established whereby the vehicle or equipment manufacturer is responsible for exercising "reasonable care" in certifying the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. Section 30115 states: "A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect." I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities for manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note the discussion on page two concerning manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, as noted on page two, Part 566 of our regulations requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., motorcycle helmets) to submit identifying information to NHTSA, with a description of the items they produce. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 and of Standard No. 218 for your information. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Enclosures omitted. |
|
ID: 21359.ztvOpenMr. Wayne L. Kruse Dear Mr. Kruse: Thank you for your letter of February 29, 2000, informing us that you "are evaluating a product opportunity." You ask how we would classify this product under our regulations and "if it needs to comply with any FMVSS, CPSC or other Federal standards." You identify your company as a "manufacturer of outdoor power equipment and recreational products." You identify the product in question as "an electric leisure mini scooter." The scooter "folds to compact size," and you envision it being bought "by RV campers and boat owners and used at places where passenger car use is not feasible." You also believe that "in some instances, it may be used in residential areas where traffic flow is restricted or controlled." The scooter is powered by an electric motor with "less than 2HP output," has a maximum speed of 15 mph, a range of 15 miles, and weighs 90 pounds. The question we must answer is whether the electric leisure mini scooter is a "motor vehicle." If it is a "motor vehicle," it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). For purposes of compliance with the FMVSS, a motor vehicle is one that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" (49 U.S.C. 30101(a)(6)). Because you speak in terms of "evaluating a product opportunity," and printed literature already exists on the scooter, we surmise that Murray is not the manufacturer of the scooter but would be a dealer, in the sense that it would be purchasing the scooters for resale to its customers (the photocopy of the literature you enclosed contains no manufacturer name). However, it is the manufacturer's intended primary use that we must consider, and not the dealer's. The product literature depicts the scooter on what appears to be a roadway in a wooded area. Further, you have stated that it may be used in residential areas subject to restricted or controlled traffic flow. We believe that the scooter is indistinguishable from a moped, which is an on- road vehicle that we have long interpreted to be a motor vehicle. The seated rider on the scooter appears to other traffic to be riding a moped. We also note that the low ground clearance of the central platform appears poorly suited to off-road use. These are sufficient indicia for us to conclude that the scooter has been manufactured primarily for on-road use. For purposes of compliance with the FMVSS, a two or three-wheeled motor vehicle (the product literature also shows a three-wheeled scooter) is defined as a "motorcycle" and is required to comply with the FMVSS that apply to this vehicle type. Some of the motorcycle standards specify lesser performance requirements for "motor driven cycles." These are motorcycles with engines of 5 HP or less. Because the scooter has a motor of not more than 2 HP, it is eligible to meet the requirements that have been modified for motor driven cycles. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 and 30115, in addition to assuring that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS, a motor vehicle manufacturer must also affix a certification label to each vehicle. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), Murray may not offer for sale, or sell, the electric leisure mini scooter unless the manufacturer has certified its compliance. The product may also be required to comply with emission regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. We are not conversant with their requirements for small vehicles such as the scooter. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-355-5263). Sincerely, |
2000 |
ID: 30122 - Make inoperative - Alan Nappier april 14OpenMr. Alan Nappier Earl Stewart Toyota 1215 U.S. Highway 1 Lake Park, FL 33403 Dear Mr. Nappier: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law requires repair shops to repair vehicles using only parts provided by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and not aftermarket parts. You enclosed a December 2010 collision repair information bulletin from Toyota which states that repairing a vehicle using OEM parts and procedures can help return Toyota vehicles to pre-loss condition following a collision. The bulletin states that Toyota vehicles are engineered and manufactured as an integrated assembly of carefully designed and manufactured parts and that Toyota does not recommend the use of alternative parts for the repair of Toyota vehicles. I understand, from telephone conversations you had with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, that you support the idea of using OEM parts. You ask: If the vehicle manufacturer states that the exterior sheetmetal [sic] of an automobile is an integral part of the Supplemental Restraint System and I install untested aftermarket sheetmetal provided by a non-OEM manufacturer (aftermarket), am I, as a repair business, in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 [make inoperative provision]? As explained below, we recommend following the vehicle manufacturers advice about the repair. However, the short answer to your specific question is no. When repairing a used vehicle, it does not violate 30122 on its face for you to use aftermarket parts in the repair of the vehicle. Background: Safety Act The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act; 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue an array of FMVSSs for new vehicles and certain equipment items. Section 30112(a)(1) of the Safety Act specifies that, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title. As applied to your inquiry, because of this statutory requirement, no person can legally sell or offer for sale a new vehicle that had been repaired if the new vehicle does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. However, once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the FMVSSs. This is because 30112(b)(1) of the Safety Act provides that the prohibitions in 30112(a) do not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment in good faith other than for resale. After the first purchase of a vehicle, the provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in 30122 of the Safety Act. That section provides, in relevant part: 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. Discussion The answer to your question depends in part on when the repair is made. New vehicle: In the case of a repair of a new vehicle prior to its delivery to the first consumer purchaser, it is our view that, if the vehicle manufacturer recommends that only an OEM part should be used, the repair shop[1] must use the OEM part or contact the manufacturer to get its concurrence that the vehicle will meet the FMVSSs with the non-OEM part. Without such concurrence, if the repair results in the new vehicle not complying with the FMVSSs, the repair shop using the aftermarket part could be liable for violating 30112(a)(1) and 30122 of the Safety Act. Used vehicle: In the case of a repair of a used vehicle, use of aftermarket parts in the repair of that vehicle is not prohibited per se by 30122.[2] Use of an aftermarket part is permitted by Federal law as long as the repair shop does not knowingly make inoperative the compliance of a required safety system. Please note, however, the following about the knowingly aspect of 30122. An entity does not need to have actual knowledge that a device or element of design would be made inoperative by the entitys modification of a vehicle or item of equipment in order for that modification to violate 30122. A violation may occur if the entity should have known that a device or element of design would be made inoperative by the entitys modification. Accordingly, the agency will assess whether the entity exercised reasonable judgment in undertaking the modification and reasonable skill in implementing it. Even if the entity claimed that it did not know that a device or element of design would be made inoperative by the entitys modification, NHTSA will conduct such an assessment to determine whether the entity should have known that the device or element of design would be made inoperative. The agency will pursue such cases under appropriate circumstances. Keep in mind also that 30122 does not require repair shops to restore safety systems damaged in a collision to a new or pre-crash condition.[3] Instead, under 30122, when any repair to a vehicle is completed, the vehicle must be returned to the customer with the safety systems capable of functioning at least as well as they were able to when the vehicle was received by the repair shop.[4] We emphasize that some of our safety standards apply to new equipment items, both OEM and replacement equipment. For example, we have FMVSSs applying to lamps and reflectors, tires, windows and windshields, brake hoses, and seat belt assemblies. If your repair involves using new equipment items that are covered by an equipment FMVSS, under 30112(a)(1) of the Safety Act, the equipment must be certified as meeting the FMVSS. In addition, NHTSA has the authority to pursue any apparent safety problems with aftermarket parts under the defect provisions of the Safety Act. If evidence demonstrated that the aftermarket part presented an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, NHTSA could order the manufacturer of the equipment to remedy the defect free of charge. Persons aware of an apparent defect can report it to NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation at https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/. In closing, please note that the above interpretation has no bearing on contractual agreements between a repair shop and a dealer and/or the vehicle manufacturer to undertake repairs in a certain manner or to use certain parts. Moreover, States may have relevant laws or regulations governing motor vehicle repair. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 4/17/15 Ref: 49 USC Sec. 30122
[1] For purposes of this letter, we include in this term repair shop all the entities listed in 30122. [2] The Conference report on the make inoperative provision states: It is not the purpose of this amendment to limit in any way the use of independent aftermarket repair and service parts in the repair or replacement of components incorporated in the vehicle at the time of manufacture pursuant to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. [3] See, e.g., http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/aiam/aiam4681.html, letter to Linda L. Conrad, January 19, 1990. [4] Nonetheless, NHTSA strongly encourages repair shops to restore functionality to safety systems to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide crash protection for occupants during the life of the vehicle. |
2015 |
ID: 9183Open Mr. Mark Archer Dear Mr. Archer: This responds to your letter in which you asked if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations affecting a vehicle that has an automatic engine shut-off device that operates when the vehicle remains idle for extended periods. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background information, NHTSA administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," copy enclosed) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights these responsibilities. We cannot tell from your letter whether you seek to produce a vehicle that has a shut-off device installed as original equipment ("O.E."), i.e., prior to a first sale to a consumer, or produce the device as an "aftermarket" item of equipment, sold for installation in used vehicles. We will discuss both situations in this letter. A shut-off device may not be installed on a new vehicle if the device causes the vehicle not to comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 102, "Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect," states that "the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." (S3.1.3). NHTSA does not know of any shut-off device that would enable a vehicle to meet S3.1.3 of Standard 102. In 1984, NHTSA terminated rulemaking on an action that would have amended S3.1.3 to permit a shut-off device that restarted the vehicle's engine when the accelerator is depressed. A copy of the termination notice is enclosed. The agency terminated rulemaking citing a number of safety concerns with the particular features of the shut-off device that was the subject of the rulemaking. NHTSA stated in the notice that, if in the future a more effective and safe fuel saving device is developed, NHTSA would again consider amending Standard 102. However, given that S3.1.3 of Standard 102 was not amended, that section precludes the O.E. installation on a shut-off device such as the one described in the termination notice. With respect to the aftermarket installation of a shut-off device, there is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product. Standard 102 applies only to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket components of a vehicle's transmission, such as a shut-off device. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of a shut-off device. Under the Safety Act, the product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As explained above, each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which 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 means that if a shut-off device were sold in the "aftermarket," no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business could install it if doing so would render inoperative any previously certified item of equipment in the vehicle. As explained above, each motor vehicle is certified as meeting Standard 102. A shut-off device that causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard 102 could not be installed by any person listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) without subjecting that person to civil penalties (section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108). The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. However, NHTSA urges all owners not to perform modifications that would degrade the safety of their vehicles, such as installing a fuel shut-off device that raises significant safety concerns. I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:102 d:4/5/94 |
1994 |
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.