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: GRAMMLT.ogmOpen The Honorable Phil Gramm Dear Senator Gramm: Thank you for your letter of June 21, 1996, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Milton C. Beveridge. Mr. Beveridge apparently wishes to modify the rear seats of a 1996 Chrysler 15 passenger van to create better access for elderly passengers who, in order to reach seats in the rear of the van, must pass through the limited space between the edges of the seats and the rear wheel housing. In order to provide better access, Mr. Beveridge wishes to have these seats made narrower so that they would seat two passengers rather than three and create a wider opening between the seats and the wheel housing. However, Mr. Beveridge is unable to find a facility that will perform this work because of an existing state requirement that any work on the van, which was purchased through a state grant, be performed by a "certified" repair facility. In addition, in speaking with the dealer who sold the van and representatives of Chrysler, Mr. Beveridge has been told that the seats in the van cannot be modified without violating federal law. As discussed below, there is no blanket Federal prohibition against modifying seats. However, Federal law does specify that dealers and repair businesses making such modifications must do so in a way that does not compromise the occupant protection provided by the vehicle manufacturer in accordance with Federal standards. Some background information about our agency may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motorvehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design that were installed in your constituent's van in compliance with applicable standards, none of these businesses may modify the vehicle in such a manner that it no longer complies with a safety standard. Accordingly, such a business should examine the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards in these areas, e.g., Standards Nos. 207, Seating Systems, 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to determine how modifications can be made in a manner that does not adversely affect compliance. The foregoing standards may be found in Sections 571.207, 571.208, 571.209, 571.210 and 571.302 of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations ,(49 CFR 571.207 et.seq.). We are providing Mr. Beveridge with copies of these standards under seperate cover. As noted above, Mr. Beveridge's letter indicates that he is having difficulty finding a "certified" repair facility to modify his vehicle. NHTSA does not "certify" repair shops or approve modifications to privately owned vehicles. As Mr. Beveridge indicates that the requirement that any modification be performed by a "certified" facility is imposed by the state, I suggest that he contact an appropriate state government official for assistance in how to find such a facility. I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact me or Mr. Otto Matheke of the Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-5253. Sincerely John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence ref:208 d:9/20/96 |
1996 |
ID: nht79-2.32OpenDATE: 10/15/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: United States Testing Company, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: OCT 15 1979 NOA-30 Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division United States Testing Company, Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 Dear Mr. Pepe: This responds to your recent letter concerning the testing procedures specified in Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Specifically, you ask about the proper sequence of requirements and testing procedures provided in paragraphs S4.3(j), S4.3(k), S5.2(j) and S5.2(k). Paragraph S4.3(j) provides that a retractor must meet certain requirements when tested in accordance with S5.2(j). Compliance with this paragraph should be determined initially. Then, paragraph S4.3(k) provides that the same retractor must be able to comply with paragraph S4.3(j) after being tested in accordance with S5.2(k), except that the retraction force is only required to be 50 percent of its original value. This original value was determined, of course, during the compliance procedure of S5.2(j). Therefore, the first interpretation included in your letter is correct. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel August 22, 1979 Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street Washington, D.C. 20590 RE: FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, Interpretation Emergency Locking Retractor, Test Sequence Dear Mr. Levin: Several manufacturers have raised questions pertaining to the testing of Emergency Locking Retractors in accordance with FMVSS No. 209. The specific paragraphs in question are S4.3 (j), S4.3 (k), S5.2 (j) and S5.2 (k). One interpretation of the standard is as follows: S4.3 (j) and (k) are Requirement paragraphs and S5.2 (j) and (k) are Demonstration paragraphs. Keeping this in mind, it appears that S4.3 (j) requires an Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) to be tested for lock up distance and retraction force in accordance with the procedures of S5.2 (j) in the "as received" condition. Paragraph S4.3 (k) requires an ELR to be tested for performance (environmental conditioning and cycling) in accordance with S5.2 (k) and then again comply with S4.3 (j) and also with paragraph S4.4. Another interpretation is that paragraph S4.3 (j) and (k) specify the requirements for an ELR and paragraph S5.2 (j) indicates what to test and S5.2 (k) specifies when to test for conformance with S4.3 (j) and (k). Therefore, retraction force measurements are made prior to performing the cycling testing. After cycling, lock-up distance and final retraction force are measured. I would appreciate your prompt review of the above interpretation and your opinions as to which is the proper meaning and intent of FMVSS No. 209. Very truly yours, Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division FP:mg |
|
ID: nht68-3.42OpenDATE: 07/22/68 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D. NHTSA TO: General Motors Technical Center TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reference to your letter of June 14, 1968. Enclosed is the Grant of Approval for equivalent seat assembly attachment hardware as requested in your letter. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren, Michigan 48090 GRANT OF APPROVAL In accordance with Paragraph S3. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, as amended, effective March 1, 1967, an interrupted thread bolt is an approved equivalent to the bolts specified in paragraph (f) of section 9.3 of Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Standards for Seat Belts for Use in Motor Vehicles (15 CFR 9) (31 F.R. 11528), provided it meets all other requirements of 15 CFR 9. Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M.D. Director Issued in Washington, D. C. on July 22, 1968 |
|
ID: aiam3776OpenMr. Duane W. Duvall, 901 North Beach Road, Bow, WA 98232; Mr. Duane W. Duvall 901 North Beach Road Bow WA 98232; Dear Mr. Duvall: We have received your letter of October 27, 1983, informing us of you plans to provide a front-end replacement kit for 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas. You have asked whether incorporating a 1973 bumper mounting hardware will meet safety regulations. You have also asked for a copy of front lighting requirements, and for information on how you may certify your kit for national distribution.; As you have not provided us with a description of all equipment item in the kit, I can offer only general guidance. There are very few requirements for fabricators of kits intended to modify used vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are of two types: those that apply to vehicle systems, and those that apply to individual equipment items. The so-called 'bumper standard' is an example of a systems standard. Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, which applied to passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1972, and September 1, 1978, did not directly apply to the bumper itself but established a level of damage resistance to be met by the vehicle in low-speed frontal impacts.; On the other hand, the vehicle lighting standard applies to bot lighting systems and replacement lighting equipment. The primary statutory obligation of a kit supplier lies in this area--to determine if any item of equipment in the kit is covered by an equipment standard, and then to insure that the item meets the standard. For example, Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, required 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas to be equipped with sealed beam headlamps. Were unsealed European headlamps to be furnished as part of the kit, that sale would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Other equipment standards cover brake hoses, tires, brake fluids, glazing, and seat belts. Usually the manufacturer of equipment items covered by standards will certify compliance with Federal requirements by marking them with the symbol 'DOT'. In that event, no recertification by the kit supplier is required.; A further important obligation of a kit supplier is to insure tha safety-related defects are absent, or do not develop, in any motor vehicle equipment that he fabricates. If such occur, he is required to notify purchasers and remedy the defects.; There is also a provision of the Safety Act that has some relevance t your operation. Although a vehicle owner may modify his car in any manner he chooses, a restriction is established on modifications by others. That restriction is that 'no device or element of design' added to a vehicle enabling it to comply with a safety standard shall be 'rendered inoperative in whole or in part.' Thus, were a repair shop to remove the Vega front end and replace it with yours, the shop must insure that the Vega upon reassembly remains in compliance with the standards that originally applied to it. Although the kit supplier is not required under the Safety Act to insure that the Vega continues to comply with Standard No. 215, such insurance obviously assists the modifier in meeting its Federal responsibilities, and your incorporation of a 1973 bumper and attachments is helpful. The modified Vega must also continue to meet Federal lighting requirements, such as being equipped with front side marker lamps, and having no cover or other object over the headlamps when they are in use.; To assist you, I enclose copies of Standards Nos. 108 and 215 as the were in effect on October 1, 1977, the requirements were substantially the same for the other years in which you are interested. There is no charge and I am returning your check. If you have further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 07-004354--4 Oct 07--saOpenMr. Terry Wagar State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles Office of Vehicle Safety and Clean Air 6 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12228 Dear Mr. Wagar: This responds to your request for our interpretation of whether a proposed amendment to subdivision 10-d of section 375 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law would be preempted by Federal law. The proposed amendment (Bill No. A4130, Jan. 31, 2007) would require certain motor vehicles to be manufactured with an outside unit magnification mirror or a convex mirror on the passengers side. Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, we believe that the proposed amendment in Bill No. A4130 would be preempted. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., expressly preempts state standards that differ from Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 30103(b) of the Act states, in relevant part: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111) prescribes performance and location requirements for rear and side view mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, school buses and motorcycles. Bill No. A4130 would amend subdivision 10-d of section 375 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law by adding paragraph (d)(ii), which would require that every new passenger-type motor vehicle, except a motorcycle, manufactured for sale in New York be manufactured with an outside unit magnification mirror or a convex mirror on the passengers side. New Yorks definition of passenger-type motor vehicle encompasses any motor vehicle with a seating capacity of not more than fifteen adults that is equipped with one or more rear windows. The new (d)(ii) rearview mirror requirement added by New York Bill No. A4130 would thus apply to passenger vehicles that are subject to FMVSS No. 111: new passenger cars, MPVs, trucks, buses, and school buses that seat less than 16. We have determined that by adding (d)(ii) to subdivision 10-d of section 375 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, New York would be regulating the same aspect of performance (rear/side field of view) regulated by FMVSS No. 111. Under the first sentence of 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), the state may prescribe a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard only if the state standard is identical to FMVSS No. 111. The following discussion analyzes the Federal and state standards according to vehicle type (as defined under 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions). Passenger Cars S5.3 of FMVSS No. 111 mandates passenger side outside rearview mirrors only for passenger cars whose inside rearview mirrors do not meet the field of view requirements of S5.1.1. Bill No. A4130 would require cars to be manufactured with an outside unit magnification mirror or a convex mirror on the passengers side. Thus, Bill No. A4130 would require passenger side rearview mirrors on new passenger cars where FMVSS No. 111 does not. The proposed rearview mirror requirement in Bill No. A4130 would not be identical to the Federal requirement, and we would consider the proposed requirement (10-d(ii) in Bill No. A4130) to be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). MPVs, Trucks and Buses Up to 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) GVWR S6.1 of FMVSS No. 111 requires all MPVs, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg)(10,000 pounds) or less (other than school buses) to either conform to the requirements for passenger cars (S5) or to have outside rearview mirrors on both sides. Thus, an MPV, truck or bus in this GVWR category that has an inside rearview mirror that complies with the field of view requirements of S5.1.1 is not required by FMVSS No. 111 to have a passenger-side outside rearview mirror. Some of these same motor vehicles are included in the definition of passenger-type motor vehicle in subdivision 10-d, and thus Bill No. A4130 would require an MPV, truck or bus in this GVWR category to have a passenger side rearview mirror where FMVSS No. 111 does not. Because the rearview mirror requirement in Bill No. A4130 is not identical to the FMVSS No. 111 requirements for MPVs, trucks or buses in this GVWR category, the proposed 10-d(ii) in Bill No. A4130 would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). MPVs, Trucks and Buses Greater Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) GVWR S7 of FMVSS No. 111 applies to MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg and less than 11,340 kg and each bus, other than a school bus, with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg. S8 applies to MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg or more. These two sections of FMVSS No. 111 specify that such vehicles shall have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 323 cm2 of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle. The rearview mirror requirement added by Bill No. A4130 (paragraph 10-d(ii)) specifies that these vehicles must be manufactured with an outside unit magnification mirror or a convex mirror on the passengers side. Because New York would be regulating the same aspect of performance (rear/side field of view) regulated by FMVSS No. 111, the state standard must be identical to the Federal standard. Because the rearview mirror requirement in Bill No. A4130 is not identical to the FMVSS No. 111 requirements for this category of motor vehicles, the proposed 10-d(ii) in Bill No. A4130 would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). School Buses That Seat Less Than 16 S9 of FMVSS No. 111 applies to school buses, and specifies a comprehensive mirror system for school buses. Because New York would be regulating the same aspect of performance (rear/side field of view) regulated by FMVSS No. 111, the nonidentical state rearview mirror standard proposed by Bill No. A4130 would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). Under the second sentence of 30103(b) New York may have a state standard for mirrors on vehicles procured for the state's own use (e.g., public school buses) that imposes a higher level of safety than FMVSS No. 111. However, we are unable to determine from your letter whether the New York state rearview mirror standard proposed in Bill No. A4130 would prescribe a higher performance requirement than the comprehensive mirror system for school buses under FMVSS No. 111. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:111 d.1/31/08 |
2008 |
ID: 09-004766 302OpenMr. Louis Siegel VP Dometic Automotive, USA P.O. Box 15299 Richmond, VA 23227-0699 Dear Mr. Siegel: This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to a refrigerator mounted in a cabinet in the sleeper of a Class 8 truck (a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,969 kilograms (33,000 pounds)). You ask whether the standard would have to be met by just the front of the refrigerator door, and not the other exterior surfaces of the refrigerator. As explained below, our answer is yes. Background 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. You provide the following description of the refrigerator. [T]he refrigerator is mounted in such a manner such that the front door is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space; the other surfaces are contained within a cabinet whose outer surfaces are in the refreshable air space, and the other surfaces of the refrigerator are greater than 13 mm from the cabinets inner surface. You ask: Does the standard apply only to the front door? Does the standard apply to the other five surfaces (not in the refreshable air space)?
The following response is based on our understanding of your letter and the description you provided. Discussion FMVSS No. 302 applies to particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, on new completed motor vehicles, including trucks of all GVWRs. The following components are listed in S4.1: 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. Of these components, any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 millimeters (mm) of the occupant compartment air space shall meet the flammability resistance requirements (S4.2). A component such as a refrigerator door is not specifically enumerated in S4.1 of FMVSS No. 302. However, there are several considerations to bear in mind when answering your question. NHTSA has previously determined that a glove box door is not a component included in S4.1, unless it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash[1] or describes a component that closely resembles an enumerated component.[2] Further, a component that is incorporated into an enumerated component could be considered part of the enumerated component.[3] We understand from your letter that the refrigerator is stored in a built-in cabinet, such that the front door [of the refrigerator] is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space. Applying the above considerations, the refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is incorporated into a listed component. The built-in cabinet and refrigerator face could be considered part of the vehicles trim panels, which is enumerated in S4.1. The refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. We are unable to be more specific with our answer without more detailed information about the configuration and appearance of the refrigerator and cabinet.
Even if the standard applies to the front door, it does not appear that the standard would apply to the other five surfaces of the refrigerator. According to your letter, those surfaces are more than 13 mm from the occupant compartment air space. Under S4.2 of the standard, only portions of material that are within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space are subject to FMVSS No. 302. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosures Dated: 2/15/2010 [1] See, e.g., letters to Mr. Yasunobu Mitoya, September 24, 1971, and to Mr. F.A. Stewart, June 9, 1972 (copies enclosed). [2] Letter to Mr. J.C. Eckhold, July 19, 1971 (glove box door subject to the standard if glove box door is merely a different description of an enumerated component)(copy enclosed). [3] See, e.g., letter to Mr. F.A. Stewart, supra (stereo speaker grills and cones would be considered part of a trim panel and compartment shelf, respectively). |
2010 |
ID: 09-004766 Seigel 302 refrigeratorOpenMr. Louis Siegel VP Dometic Automotive, USA P.O. Box 15299 Richmond, VA 23227-0699 Dear Mr. Siegel: This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to a refrigerator mounted in a cabinet in the sleeper of a Class 8 truck (a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,969 kilograms (33,000 pounds)). You ask whether the standard would have to be met by just the front of the refrigerator door, and not the other exterior surfaces of the refrigerator. As explained below, our answer is yes. Background 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. You provide the following description of the refrigerator. [T]he refrigerator is mounted in such a manner such that the front door is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space; the other surfaces are contained within a cabinet whose outer surfaces are in the refreshable air space, and the other surfaces of the refrigerator are greater than 13 mm from the cabinets inner surface. You ask: Does the standard apply only to the front door? Does the standard apply to the other five surfaces (not in the refreshable air space)? The following response is based on our understanding of your letter and the description you provided. Discussion FMVSS No. 302 applies to particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, on new completed motor vehicles, including trucks of all GVWRs. The following components are listed in S4.1: 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. Of these components, any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 millimeters (mm) of the occupant compartment air space shall meet the flammability resistance requirements (S4.2). A component such as a refrigerator door is not specifically enumerated in S4.1 of FMVSS No. 302. However, there are several considerations to bear in mind when answering your question. NHTSA has previously determined that a glove box door is not a component included in S4.1, unless it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash[1] or describes a component that closely resembles an enumerated component.[2] Further, a component that is incorporated into an enumerated component could be considered part of the enumerated component.[3] We understand from your letter that the refrigerator is stored in a built-in cabinet, such that the front door [of the refrigerator] is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space. Applying the above considerations, the refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is incorporated into a listed component. The built-in cabinet and refrigerator face could be considered part of the vehicles trim panels, which is enumerated in S4.1. The refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. We are unable to be more specific with our answer without more detailed information about the configuration and appearance of the refrigerator and cabinet. Even if the standard applies to the front door, it does not appear that the standard would apply to the other five surfaces of the refrigerator. According to your letter, those surfaces are more than 13 mm from the occupant compartment air space. Under S4.2 of the standard, only portions of material that are within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space are subject to FMVSS No. 302. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosures Dated: 2/25/10 [1] See, e.g., letters to Mr. Yasunobu Mitoya, September 24, 1971, and to Mr. F.A. Stewart, June 9, 1972 (copies enclosed). [2] Letter to Mr. J.C. Eckhold, July 19, 1971 (glove box door subject to the standard if glove box door is merely a different description of an enumerated component)(copy enclosed). [3] See, e.g., letter to Mr. F.A. Stewart, supra (stereo speaker grills and cones would be considered part of a trim panel and compartment shelf, respectively). |
2010 |
ID: nht71-5.56OpenDATE: 05/12/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Herbert A. Strum; P. E. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: In your letter of April 20, 1971, to Robert L. Carter you ask for copies of regulations governing "the construction, equipping, and operation of private motor coaches." It is our understanding that you wish to construct a vehicle for your own use upon a standard Dodge M-300 motor coach chassis. A motor coach is categorized as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose copies of the following safety standards which would apply to the motor coach body that you wish to construct, and with which you, as a "manufacturer" of a motor vehicle, must ensure compliance. 102 - Transmission Shift Lever, etc. (Note S3.2) 103 - Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems 107 - Reflecting Surfaces 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associate Equipment 111 - Rearview Mirrors 205 - Glazing Materials 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components 208 - Seat Belt Installation (effective July 1, 1971) 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies (effective September 1, 1971; the requirements in effect until then apply only to equipment manufacturers) This agency has no regulations governing the "operation" of a private motor home; however, Michigan may have special provisions as a prerequisite to the registration of a motor home. Sincerely, Enclosures April 20, 1971 Robert L. Carter, Motor Vehicle Programs, Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Re: Construction and Equipment Requirements Motor Coaches - Recreational Vehicles. Would you kindly send me the regulations which govern the construction, equipping and operation of private motor coaches? I am proposing to construct such a coach for my own use, starting with a standard Dodge M-300 motor coach chassis designed for the purpose, and presumably meeting all current regulations which apply to the chassis and drive-train, etc. My concern thereafter, is with the requirements governing the body dimensions, clearance lighting, etc. Your prompt attention will be appreciated. (Herbert A. Strum) P. E. |
|
ID: nht79-4.15OpenDATE: 03/07/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: We regret the delay in responding to your April 18, 1978, letter criticizing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation concerning the responsibility of a manufacturer for ensuring that its vehicles will not be overloaded when transporting materials for which they are designed. In that interpretation, the agency indicated that a vehicle whose tank cargo volume is of such size that it misrepresents the assigned GVWR and GAWR values of that vehicle, thus, inviting overloading might be considered to have a safety related defect. Please permit me to qualify the interpretation in the light of your criticism. The NHTSA realizes that overloading is a problem created for the most part by the operator of a vehicle. Accordingly, it is not intended by the agency's interpretation or regulations to hold a vehicle manufacturer responsible for every situation in which a vehicle is overloaded. Most any type truck can be overloaded by the user. An operator should be aware of this possibility, however, given the amount of space on that vehicle on which cargo can be loaded and the broad range of cargo that can be transported by that vehicle. If a truck designed for the transportation of one specific cargo were misused by the operator to transport another type of cargo not intended by the vehicle manufacturer, then any resultant overloading would be the responsibility of the operator not of the manufacturer. However, when a vehicle designed to transport a specific cargo can be overloaded when filled to its capacity with that cargo, the NHTSA has determined this to be a problem created by the vehicle manufacturer and would consider taking action against a manufacturer to correct the problem. This agency's interpretation that a vehicle be able to safely transport its intended design cargo when fully loaded is an objective and unambiguous requirement and simply places the burden upon a manufacturer to ensure that the design cargo does not exceed the GAWR and GVWR. Specifically we are concerned that a tank of fixed volumetric capacity could be loaded to exceed the vehicle's GAWR and GVWR values when filled with a commodity of design density simply because of the tank being too large. When there is reason to believe that the density of a cargo likely to be transported could present a vehicle overloading problem, the manufacturer has a duty to provide a warning and information as a precaution in averting the potential hazard. The NHTSA does not object to the practice of partial loading of tankers and tank compartments for remaining within safe loading limits provided guidelines are furnished by manufacturers for performing approved loading operations. Prescribed precautions hopefully will counteract any tendency to perceive volume as the load limiting criterion. We would agree that loading information as contained in your enclosure would be a satisfactory means of conveying safety information and could be referenced on a conspicuous vehicle label. SINCERELY, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association April 18, 1978 Joseph J.-Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Gentlemen: This is a response to your letter of July 1, 1977, your file No. NOA-30, written to Mr. Jerry McNeil of American Trailers (ref. other correspondence on the same subject), regarding the act of a user's exceeding a vehicle's GVWR possibly being considered a safety defect. We take strong exception to this interpretation for several reasons: (1) Your interpretation assumes a user to be either not knowledgeable or dishonest by overloading a tank with a commodity with too high a density for the tanks total capacity. We must design with the premise that a user is knowledgeable and honest. (2) Your interpretation excuses overloading of certain types of vehicles but not volumetric type. Whereas overloading is the responsibility of the user, any type vehicle can be intentionally or naively overloaded. (3) Your interpretation, if strictly enforced, would eliminate the use of one vehicle for more than one density commodity at great expense to the consumer. However, all State and Federal weight laws are written using weight in pounds; there is no reference to density. (4) Your interpretation is so general that it defies any definitive objective evaluation. It would be impossible to clearly define literally the thousands of load types or combinations of load types that are possible. Your interpretation would hold one party responsible for another party's violation of the law. We doubt that this would hold up in court. Partial loading of tank vehicles has been a general practice of our industry for over 50 years. It is done safely and for good reason. The most common example of partially loaded tanks is the typical 9000 gallon aluminum gasoline tank with 5 compartments. The tank weighs approximately 10,000 pounds and the typical GVWR of a vehicle such as this would be 70,000 lbs. Full loading with gasoline at 6.1 lb./gallon would provide a gross vehicle weight of 64,900 pounds (54,900 lb. of product & 10,000 lb. of tank), well within the vehicle's GVWR. Partial loading with home heating oil at 7.2 lbs/gallon is achieved by leaving the third tank compartment empty (see attached sketch), reducing the total volume capacity to 7625 gallons and maintaining a gross vehicle weight of 64,900 lbs. - again 54,900 lb. product, 10,000 lbs. of tank. This double purpose tank is versatile, practical, safe and very common. We estimate the total fleet of 9000 gallons tank to be about 3000 units. There are also many more gasoline tank both larger and smaller than 9000 gallons. If we understand you correctly, your interpretation is that if an operator loads home heating oil into all five compartments overloading the vehicle and exceeding the gross vehicle rate rating (GVWR), the manufacturer may be held liable for a safety defect and be subject to a recall campaign. If, however, an operator loads a flatbed or van trailer with automobile batteries and causes the same overload and subsequent safety problem, this would not be considered a safety defect. It is just as likely that a volumetric type vehicle body, such as a tank grain trailer or dump truck, etc., could be incorrectly loaded as it is for flatbed trailer. For instance, a grain trailer is sized to handle a safe legal payload of the lighter grains and have the sides high enough to safely retain the product while in transit. If an operator heaps a load of the heaviest grains he will more than likely exceed not only the GVWR, but also the local state weight laws. If your interpretation is enforced it would require that we manufacture vehicles for single purpose use which would cause a tremendous duplication of equipment and would be a waste of our natural resources and energy. You can see that a manufacturer has no control over the loading practices used on his equipment after the vehicle leaves his premises. We would appreciate very much reconsideration of your position and would welcome the opportunity to make more detailed presentations of our position if you have further questions. Charles J. Calvin President PETROLEUM TANK TRAILER A typical 9000 gallon aluminum petroleum tank trailer conforms to MC 306 and is designed to carry gasoline and/or fuel oil. (Graphics omitted) Weight Summary Tank weight 10,000 lb GVW Trailer 64,900 lb Payload 54,900 Tractor weight 15,100 GCW 80,000lb Loading Schedule Compartments Gasoline Fuel Oil Fuel Oil at 6.1 lb/gal at 7.17 lb/gal at 7.17 lb/gal 1 2000 gal 2000 gal 2000 gal 2 1875 gal 1875 gal 1875 gal 3 1350 gal EMPTY 1350 gal 4 1875 gal 1875 gal 1875 gal 5 2000 gal 2000 gal 2000 gal Total payload volume 9000 gal 7625 gal 9000 gal Total payload & trailer 64,900 lb 64,900 lb 74,530 lb GVWR 70,000 lb 70,000 lb 70,000 lb Improperly loaded trailer results in a loaded weight which exceeds the GVWR by 4530 lb. |
|
ID: nht94-3.95OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 10, 1994 FROM: David L. Clark -- Aquillino and Welsh, P.C., Arlington, VA TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to David L. Clark (A42; STD. 208) TEXT: We are currently planning to market in the United States an add-on device for a seat belt. Clarke Harper identified your office as the primary contact for obtaining information regarding safety requirements and approval for such devices. Would your office kindly provide us with the information necessary for obtaining Federal approval and/or meeting Federal safety standards for an add-on seat belt device. We would also like to know which Federal agencies need to be contacted regarding importation of such a device. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above telephone number. Materials can be sent to me at the above address. |
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.