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: aiam4247OpenMs. Elinor F. Wilber, Chairman, Transportation Committee, Ms. Norma Gyle, Chairman, Seat Belt Subcommittee, State of Connecticut, E -- 23, State Capitol, Hartford, CT 06106; Ms. Elinor F. Wilber Chairman Transportation Committee Ms. Norma Gyle Chairman Seat Belt Subcommittee State of Connecticut E -- 23 State Capitol Hartford CT 06106; Dear Ms. Wilber and Ms. Gyle: This responds to your letter asking whether Connecticut may se performance standards for belts retrofitted to school buses. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. The answer to your question is yes.; First, we would like to distinguish between a state law which would se standards for belts *voluntarily* retrofitted to school buses and a state law which *requires* all school buses to be retrofitted with safety belts. As to the latter, Connecticut may require the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses which the State purchases for its own use. However, as explained below, Federal law would preempt Connecticut from requiring other school buses (i.e., those used by non-public schools) to be retrofitted with safety belts.; Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety regulations i governed by section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which states:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; The first sentence of section 103(d) has the effect of preemptin safety standards of the States and their political subdivisions that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance as a Federal safety standard unless they are identical to that safety standard. The second sentence of the section provides that the limitation on safety standards does not prevent governmental entities from specifying nonidentical safety requirements for vehicles procured for their own use. However, the second sentence does not permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.; It is our opinion that a state standard which requires *all* schoo buses to be retrofitted with safety belts has the effect of mandating the installation of safety belts in all large school buses operating in that state. Since such a standard regulates the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard for school bus occupant crash protection (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222) and would not be identical to the Federal requirements for 'compartmentalization,' we believe it would be preempted under the first sentence of section 103(d). However, a state is not prohibited from requiring the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses procured by the State or its political subdivisions (i.e., public school buses) as long as the Federal requirements for compartmentalization are not violated.; Connecticut may set performance requirements for safety belt voluntarily installed on used school buses, such as for the amount of force the anchorages must be capable of withstanding. As you know, we are currently considering an amendment to FMVSS No. 222 to set performance requirements for voluntarily-installed safety belts on new school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. However, since such an amendment, if adopted, would only affect *new* school buses and no Federal safety standard establishes performance requirements for retrofitting safety belts, Connecticut would not be preempted from establishing requirements for belts that are voluntarily- installed on used buses. Keep in mind, however, that a state should ensure that its requirements do not prevent vehicles from complying with Federal safety standards. Since FMVSS No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, specifies requirements for belt assemblies used in motor vehicles, Connecticut must not issue a standard for belt assemblies for nonpublic school buses that is not identical to Standard No. 209.; I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contac my office if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4660OpenMr. S. Watanabe, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-l3, Nakameguro, Meguro-Ku Tokyo l53, Japan; Mr. S. Watanabe Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-l3 Nakameguro Meguro-Ku Tokyo l53 Japan; "Dear Mr. Watanabe: This is in reply to your FAX of September 14, l989 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD), as shown in the drawing attached to your letter. You have two questions: '1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l(v)?' Paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(v) states that 'Means shall be provided in the VHAD for compensating for deviations in floor slope not less than 1.2 degrees from the horizontal that would affect the correct positioning of the headlamp for vertical aim.' If a VHAD is 'without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope' it would not satisfy Standard No. l08. '2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l)(v)?' The answer is yes, if observation of the simple spirit level is coordinated with an off-vehicle measurement of floor slope. As located, the spirit level with the range of +/- 1.2 degree range will allow aim of the headlamp, even though the vehicle may not be level, and willcompensate for floor slopes of up to 1.2 degrees, thus fulfilling the requirement that there be compensatory means when the vehicle upon which the headlamp is mounted is not resting upon level ground. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4092OpenMr. Carl R. Walker, Manager, Technical Sales and Service, P.T. Brake Lining Company, Inc., P.O. Box 329, Lawrence, MA 01842; Mr. Carl R. Walker Manager Technical Sales and Service P.T. Brake Lining Company Inc. P.O. Box 329 Lawrence MA 01842; Dear Mr. Walker: This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Richard Radlinski concerning a statement by International Transquip alleging that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) 'agree' that the Mini-Max brake system produced by that company complies with Federal standards. You noted that International Transquip has referenced a June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS.; NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicl equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment complies (sic) with applicable safety standards. I would emphasize that NHTSA has not issued any statement that could be read as 'agreement' that the Mini-Max brake complies with FMVSS No. 121.; We are enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to Navistar whic discusses NHTSA's position concerning the June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS. The letter also notes that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised a number of issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and two related interpretation letters, to International Transquip and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590 (202-426-2768).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4055OpenFinbarr J. O'Neill, Esq., General Counsel, Hyundai Motor America, 7373 Hunt Avenue, P.O. Box 2669, Garden Grove, CA 92642- 2669; Finbarr J. O'Neill Esq. General Counsel Hyundai Motor America 7373 Hunt Avenue P.O. Box 2669 Garden Grove CA 92642- 2669; Dear Mr. O'Neill: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of FMVSS No 101, *Controls and Displays*, concerning the color of the highbeam telltale. You stated that while Table 2 of the standard indicates that a manufacturer has the option of choosing a green or blue telltale, your review of competitive vehicles shows that virtually all have chosen blue telltales. You asked whether NHTSA has taken any position as to whether one color is preferable to the other. You also asked for comment on whether NHTSA has any reasonable anticipation of changing this requirement.; I would note that in the past NHTSA required the highbeam telltale t be blue. That color was selected primarily to promote international harmonization of standards regulating vehicle controls and displays. Blue is the color requirement of the International Standards Organization, the Economic Commission for Europe, and the European Economic Community.; On January 21, 1982, NHTSA amended Standard No. 101 to permit green a an alternative to blue (47 FR 2996). The purpose of the change was to allow the use of light emitting diode technology, which at that time could not produce the color blue. While we do not have a preference as such as to how manufacturers choose to meet our standards, we would note that use of the color blue tends to promote international harmonization.; On September 12, 1985, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (50 F 37240) a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 101. Among other things, the proposal concerns color requirements for electronic displays. See 50 FR 37244. We have enclosed a copy of the notice for your convenience.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4023OpenMr. Jean Paul Turgeon, Security and Legality Manager, Prevost Car Incorporated, Ste-Claire, Quebec, Canada, GOR 2VO; Mr. Jean Paul Turgeon Security and Legality Manager Prevost Car Incorporated Ste-Claire Quebec Canada GOR 2VO; Dear Mr. Turgeon: This responds to your August 12, 1985 letter to Administrator Stee regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We apologize for the delay in our response.; Your questions concerned paragraph S5.3.2, which applies to buses othe than school buses. You asked whether the requirements of paragraph S5.3.2 may be met by: (1) release mechanisms located within the area defined by Figure 1 of the standard that are operated by a rotary or straight type of motion, and by (2) release mechanisms located within the area defined by Figure 2 operated by a straight type of motion.; Your understanding is correct. Rotary type motions may be used fo release mechanisms located in regions of low force application as shown in Figures 1 or 3 of the standard. Straight motions may be used for release mechanisms located in regions of low force application shown in Figures 1 and 3, and in regions of high force application shown in Figures 2 and 3.; Your second question asked whether the force application for a releas mechanism operated by a rotary motion is limited by S5.3.2 to 20 pounds. The answer is yes. Release mechanisms may be operated by a rotary type of motion in locations shown in Figure 1 or Figure 3 for low-force application. The magnitude of the force application must not be more than 20 pounds.; The second part of your question stated, 'In case of straight motion the force application is limited to 60 pounds.' This statement is not entirely correct. If the release mechanism is located in the low-force application areas shown in Figures 1 or 3, S5.3.2 specifies that the force applications must not exceed 20 pounds.; Your third question concerned the type of motions that are required t operate the release mechanisms. The first part of this question asked whether a rotary motion 'implies a rotation of the hand and twisting of the arm as for turning a door knob.' Standard No. 217 does not restrict you from using the particular type of rotary motion you described, provided that all other requirements of the standard can be met.; The second part of this question asked whether a straight motion mean 'a straight pull perpendicular to the emergency exit surface.' Paragraph S5.3.2(b) describes the direction of a straight high-force application as 'perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' Your understanding, therefore, appears to be in accordance with S5.3.2.; The final part of this question asked whether 'a pull reasonabl perpendicular, i.e. at 70 degrees instead of 90 degrees, would be acceptable.' The answer to your question depends on whether one or two force applications are necessary to release the emergency exit. If only one force application is necessary, the direction of the application must meet the 90 to 180 degree directional requirement of S5.3.2. No variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible. However, paragraph S5.3.2 permits the use of two force applications for a single opening. Only one of the two force applications is required to differ by 90 to 180 degrees from the direction of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit.; Your final question asked whether a particular type of push out windo in your buses would comply with FMVSS No. 217. As you know, this agency does not pass approval on the compliance of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, each manufacturer is required to determine whether its products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.; You asked whether a push out window with a mechanism that can b released by a pull not exceeding 60 pounds in a direction opposite to the direction of the opening would meet the requirements of S5.3.2. The answer to your question depends on the location of the release mechanism. If it is located in the regions shown in Figures 1 or 3 for mechanisms released by low-force applications, the magnitude of the force application must not exceed 20 pounds. Release mechanisms located in regions of high force application must be capable of operation by force applications not more than 60 pounds. Of course, the other requirements in FMVSS No. 217 pertaining to emergency exits and release mechanisms must also be met.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4647OpenI; I; Mr. Dan Trexler Specifications Engineer Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261 Dear Mr. Trexler: This is in reply to your letter of May 8, l989, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Erika Jones. You have received requests 'to install a master electrical disconnect switch on many buses.' When the switch is turned to the 'off' position 'it renders inoperative the warning signals (to the driver) required by FMVSS l05, 121 and 217. It also inactivates the hazard warning flasher required by FMVSS 108.' You ask whether installation of the switch would constitute a noncompliance, or a 'safety related hazard.' if it is accessible to the seated driver, or if remotely located in the battery or engine compartment, without ready access to the driver. Although you have not explained the purpose of such a device, we understand that a battery disconnect switch of this nature is deemed desirable by many bus owners to prevent drains on the battery when the bus is at rest. When the switch is activated, the bus cannot be started and driven because electric power is not available. Under this circumstance we do not believe that the switch either creates a noncompliance with any of the standards listed, nor constitutes a safety related defect, regardless of its location. When the bus is in operation the warning systems of the standards are not affected. The possibility of inadvertent activation when the bus is in use does not constitute a defect in performance, construction, components, or materials such as to create a safety related defect. To forestall any possibility of inadvertent activation, however, you may find it preferable to locate the switch away from the driver. We understand that a purpose of this switch is to reduce the likelihood of fire after accidents in which there has been fuel spillage. In this circumstance, it is likely that the bus would be positioned either in the roadway or adjacent to it. Safety would be enhanced if the hazard warning signal power source were separate from the batteries inactivated by the disconnect switch, so that these warning lamps could continue to operate. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /; |
|
ID: aiam4289OpenMr. George Ziolo, 16182 Arena Drive, Ramona, CA 92065; Mr. George Ziolo 16182 Arena Drive Ramona CA 92065; Dear Mr. Ziolo: This letter responds to your inquiry concerning Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 111. I apologize for the delay. As I understand your question, you are concerned with a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror apparently does not meet the field-of-view specifications in S5.1 of FMVSS 111 and therefore that must have an outside passenger side mirror in order to comply with the standard. You wish to know whether the need to inscribe the convex mirror in accordance with S5.4.2 is eliminated when the passenger side of the car has both a complying mirror of unit magnification and a convex mirror.; Please understand that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manfuacturer's responsibility to ensure that its vehicle or equipment complies with applicable standards. Therefore, this letter is an opinion based on the facts you provide in your letter.; The answer to your question is 'yes.' The passenger side of a new ca would need an outside convex mirror inscribed in accordance with S5.4..2 only if its inside rearview mirror failed to meet the S5.1.1 field of view specifications, and the manufacturer chose to comply with the requirement of S5.3 for an outside passenger side mirror by installing a convex passenger-side mirror. S5.4 provides that the requirements in S5.4.1 - S5.4.3 are applicable to a convex mirror only if that mirror is used to comply with S5.3. In your example, a mirror of unit magnification is used to comply with S5.3. I should add that the manufacturer would have to ensure that installing the convex mirror does not take the mirror of unit magnification out of compliance with FMVSS 111.; Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2925OpenMr. Donald W. Vescio, Sr., Director of Engineering, R. E. Dietz Company, 225 Wilkinson Street, Box 1214, Syracuse, NY 13201; Mr. Donald W. Vescio Sr. Director of Engineering R. E. Dietz Company 225 Wilkinson Street Box 1214 Syracuse NY 13201; Dear Mr. Vescio:#This responds to your letter of September 21, 1978 requesting interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, *Controls and Displays*.#In your first set of questions, you ask about the application of the display requirements to trucks with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more. Those requirements do not apply to such trucks. Under S5 of the standard, the only trucks required by the standard to comply with the display requirements are those with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds.#In your second set of questions, you pose various questions about the identification and illumination of controls. In the first question, you ask whether the turn signal control symbol must be placed on the control itself. The answer is 'no.' S5.2.1 provides that the symbol shall be placed on *or* adjacent to the control. You also ask if there is any size requirement. The answer is again 'no.' There are no size requirements for any of the control symbols.#In your second question, you ask about the size requirements for the hazard warning signal control. As indicated above, there are no size requirements. As to illumination, S5.3.1 provides that hand- operated controls mounted on the steering column are not required to be illuminated. Thus, neither the turn signal control symbol nor the hazard warning control symbol need be illuminated. With regard to the non-mandatory red lens between the turn signal control symbol, if that lens is intended to call attention to the location of the hazard warning control, we urge that it be triangular. If it is intended to call attention to the turn signal control, we urge that the shape be made less similar to the hazard warning symbol to avoid confusion.#In your third question, you asked about the relationship between the control and display requirements in FMVSS 101 and those in FMVSS 108. The agency will soon issue a notice dealing with this issue.#Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2923OpenMr. Donald W. Vescio, Sr., Director of Engineering, R. E. Dietz Company, 225 Wilkinson Street, Box 1214, Syracuse, NY 13201; Mr. Donald W. Vescio Sr. Director of Engineering R. E. Dietz Company 225 Wilkinson Street Box 1214 Syracuse NY 13201; Dear Mr. Vescio:#This responds to your letter of September 21, 1978 requesting interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, *Controls and Displays*.#In your first set of questions, you ask about the application of the display requirements to trucks with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more. Those requirements do not apply to such trucks. Under S5 of the standard, the only trucks required by the standard to comply with the display requirements are those with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds.#In your second set of questions, you pose various questions about the identification and illumination of controls. In the first question, you ask whether the turn signal control symbol must be placed on the control itself. The answer is 'no.' S5.2.1 provides that the symbol shall be placed on *or* adjacent to the control. You also ask if there is any size requirement. The answer is again 'no.' There are no size requirements for any of the control symbols.#In your second question, you ask about the size requirements for the hazard warning signal control. As indicated above, there are no size requirements. As to illumination, S5.3.1 provides that hand-operated controls mounted on the steering column are not required to be illuminated. Thus, neither the turn signal control symbol nor the hazard warning control symbol need be illuminated. With regard to the non-mandatory red lens between the turn signal control symbol, if that lens is intended to call attention to the location of the hazard warning control, we urge that it be triangular. If it is intended to call attention to the turn signal control, we urge that the shape be made less similar to the hazard warning symbol to avoid confusion.#In your third question, you asked about the relationship between the control and display requirements in FMVSS 101 and those in FMVSS 108. The agency will soon issue a notice dealing with this issue.#Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5050OpenMr. David H. Milligan 7287 S. 300 E. Midvale, UT 84047; Mr. David H. Milligan 7287 S. 300 E. Midvale UT 84047; "Dear Mr. Milligan: This responds to your letter asking about th Federal requirements that apply to the 'Car Seat Support,' an item you manufacture for use with infant restraints. Background Your device appears to consist of a fabric covered block of foam approximately 18x4x3 inches in size. The marketing material you sent shows that your device is intended to be placed under the bottom rearmost edge of an installed rear- facing infant seat (bottom rearmost edge relative to the vehicle). The device would cause the restraint to tip more toward the front of the car. We understand that the device is intended for use with vehicles that have seat cushions that slant downward toward the seat back, such as in some small cars. Infant restraints are tested by NHTSA for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion. (The 'standard seat assembly' used to test the restraints is specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 213, copy enclosed.) A downward-slanting vehicle seat cushion might cause an infant restraint to tip toward the rear of the car. This could result in the angle between an infant restraint's back support surface and the vertical to decrease, i.e., the back of the restraint might become more upright. If a restraint's back support surface becomes too upright, it might not be able to provide support to the infant's head and neck. The purpose of your product is to prop the bottom of a rear-facing infant restraint when the restraint is used with a downward-slanting vehicle seat, to ensure that the restraint bottom is horizontal. You state that consumers currently use items such as 'blocks of wood' and 'rolled up towels' to serve the same purpose as the Car Seat Support. NHTSA's Response There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. FMVSS No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket supporting devices. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your device contain a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, 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 ....' It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note that we are concerned that your device might compromise the safety protection provided by an infant seat if the consumer is not provided clear information about the use of the product. The Car Seat Support you provided came with a label that has a picture of the device positioned under a rear- facing infant seat. There is no other instruction on the label on the use of the product. In the absence of clear instructions, there is the potential that consumers might misuse the Car Seat Support. For example, a consumer might not know that the restraint is intended for use with only a rear-facing restraint that needs a 'support' to keep the bottom of the restraint horizontal when positioned on a vehicle seat. Without proper instructions, a consumer might use the Car Seat Support on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion and thereby inappropriately tilt the restraint so that it does not provide sufficient crash protection. One means of reducing the likelihood of confusion about the proper use of the product would be for you to provide consumer instructions on the use of the Car Seat Support, such as on the purpose of the product, on the type of restraint and vehicle seat for which the device is intended, and on limiting how far rearward the restraint should be permitted to tilt. The picture of the Child Seat Support in use should be consistent with those instructions. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
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.