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: 14669a.drnOpen Ms. Carol Zeitlow, Engineering Quality Manager Dear Ms. Zeitlow: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company must retain the vehicle identification numbers (VINs) that were assigned to Medium Tactical Vehicles (MTVRs), that your company will refurbish for the U. S. Marine Corps (USMC) and the U.S. Army. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not require the VINs to be retained because they were not required for military vehicles. However, Federal criminal legislation enacted in 1992, administered by the Justice Department, proscribes persons from knowingly removing an identification number from a motor vehicle. Your letter describes your company's work on the MTVRs as replacing the engine, axles, transmission, and frame with updated parts. Oshkosh will also be retaining and reworking the cargo body and the cab along with other components. The vehicles you are working on were built for the U.S. Armed Forces for military purposes, and will be used for military purposes after refurbishment. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that because Oshkosh did not originally manufacture the vehicles, you do not know why the vehicles were assigned VINs. A required VIN generally must be retained on a vehicle throughout the life of the vehicle. However, military vehicles are not required by NHTSA to have VINs. NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 571.7(c), Military vehicles, states:
While the VIN requirements are now in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, rather than in a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), we interpret Part 565 not to apply to military vehicles. The requirement that vehicles have VINs was in a FMVSS, Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements, until recently. In 1996, Standard No. 115 was consolidated with Part 565, as part of an effort to simplify the VIN requirements. 61 FR 29031; June 7, 1996. NHTSA indicated in consolidating the requirements that it did not intend to make any substantive changes to the VIN requirements. Thus, this consolidation did not have the effect of requiring that military vehicles have VINs. The consolidation took effect on July 8, 1996. Accordingly, nothing in Part 565 or in any other NHTSA regulation would require Oshkosh to retain the old VIN or (in the event Oshkosh is manufacturing a new vehicle) to assign new VINs. When originally manufactured, since the MTVRs were manufactured for, and sold to, the U.S. Armed Forces in conformity with military specifications, the MTVRs were not required by NHTSA to have VINs. In Oshkosh's "remanufacture" of the MTVRs, since the MTVRs will be built for, and sold to the U.S. Armed Forces "in conformity with contractual specifications," NHTSA would not require the newly manufactured vehicles to have VINs. Nevertheless, since VINs have already been assigned to the MTVRs, the following provision under Federal criminal statutes may apply. Section 511, Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers, was added to Title 18 of the United States Code by the "Anti Car Theft Act of 1992." That section states that whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, for purposes other than repair, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Since the U.S. Department of Justice administers Section 511, you should contact that agency for further information about the provision. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: nht88-3.92OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/03/88 EST FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: MAX J. MIZEJEWSKI -- FOREIGN MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC. ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04-07-88 RE: ROAD READER TO NHTSA FROM MAX J. MIZEJEWSKI, FOREIGN MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC.; OCC-1862; UNDATED LETTER TO MARK JANSEN, CHEVY DUTY PICK UP PARTS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA; A32; STD.108 TEXT: This is in response to your letter in which you asked whether a product your company plans to import would be subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). According to your letter, this product, which you refer to as a "Roadreader," att aches to the front of a motor vehicle and has two sensors which give a visual and audible alarm when the vehicle drifts off a road. You indicated that this product would be connected to the wiring related to the turn signals. You noted that this device does not affect vehicle functions such as acceleration, braking lighting, or visibility. You further stated that if required, you would provide the device to NHTSA or another government agency for inspection. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Title 49 CFR Part 571 contai ns the safety standards promulgated by the agency. Although you stated that this device does not affect the electrical wiring related to the turn lights, I suggest you closely review Standard No. 108,Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment ( Copy enclosed). This safety standard applies to both motor vehicle equipment installed in new motor vehicles and replacement equipment sold in the aftermarket. While I cannot conclusively say that this standard is or is not applicable to your product based on the limited facts in your letter, this standard may apply to your product because the wiring for your device is connected to components (i.e., turn lights ) subject to the standard. For instance, S4.5.11 requires that components including the turn signal lamps must be wired to flash. More generally, S4.1.3 forbids the installation of an additional piece of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the lightin g equipment required by Standard No. 108. Therefore, a device such as yours is permissible as original vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. As for the sale of your product in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, Section 108 of the Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design ins talled on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a FMVSS. Since an importer is defined by the Safety Act as a manufacturer, you should assure that installation of your device does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, the turn signal lamp or any other item of motor vehicle equipment subject to Standard No. 108. As for your second question concerning inspection and approval of your product, you should be aware that NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under Section 114 of the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. Further, as you noted, you would be responsible for recalling any safety-related defects which you or this agency finds in your product. You also should be aware that laws from particular States may apply to your device. Therefore, you may wish to contact the State and local transportation authorities in the areas where you intend to market your product. The American Association of Moto r Vehicle Administrators (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203) may also be able to provide information about State laws concerning devices similar to your product. Enclossssssure |
|
ID: nht90-2.8OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: APRIL 9, 1990 FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: FREDERICK H. DAMBACH -- PRESIDENT, EXECULINE TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-2-89 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM FREDERICK H. DAMBACH ATTACHED; (OCC-3790) TEXT: This is in response to your letter requesting that I reconsider my conclusion in a July 26, 1989, letter to you interpreting emergency exit requirements contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in responding. As is explained below, after reconsideration, I must still conclude that exits located in the roof of a bus do not satisfy the requirement contained in S5.2 of Standard 217, that 40 percent of the required emergency e xit space on a transit bus must be located on each side of the bus. Your August letter argues that roof exits must be counted in determining compliance with S5.2 because the standard does not specifically state that a side is that part of a bus that is perpendicular to the floor. Instead, relying upon provisions of the F ederal Highway Administration's (FHWA) regulations at 49 CFR Part 393, you assert that the side of a bus is any part to the left or right of the roof centerline. While this may be true under the FHWA regulations, those regulations are being used in a co mpletely different context than Standard No. 217, and concern lighting and marker requirements and specifications for towing for motor carriers. Standard 217, on the other hand, specifies requirements for the operating forces, opening dimensions, and ma rkings for emergency exits in buses to ensure readily accessible emergency egress from these vehicles. Because of the different purpose and context of standard 217 and the FHWA regulations, the definition of the word "side" is not necessarily the same f or those regulations. In fact, as I explained in detail in my previous letter to you, the structure and purpose of Standard 217 show that the word "side" has a different meaning in Standard 217 than it does when used by the FHWA in Part 393. Moreover, and contrary to the assertion in your letter, Standard 217 is not a subpart of Part 393. Standard 217 is found in 49 CFR Part 571. The Standard is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), administered by NHTSA. Under Federal law, thes e standards are applicable to manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles. On the other hand, Part 393, administered by the FHWA, is a part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which are applicable to motor carriers. Although NHTSA and FHWA coordinate with each other to avoid conflicts in our respective regulatory programs, the FHWA does not have authority over motor vehicle manufacturers. Likewise, NHTSA does not have authority over motor carriers. This agency has statutory authority to regulate the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Additionally, our statute prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Howe ver, this agency has no authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. Hence, NHTSA cannot require the vehicles used in your company's fleet to comply with Standard 217 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the individual States are free to regulate the operation and use of vehicles within their borders, provided that those regulations do not contravene any Federal laws or regulations. In this case, the State of New Jersey has chosen to adopt the provisions of Standard 217 and make it applicable to vehicles operated within New Jersey. This choice by the State of New Jersey does not contravene any of this agency's statutes or regulations. Thus, while I appreciate that New Jersey's decision to ap ply Standard 217 to vehicles operated in the State may have caused you difficulties, the wisdom and fairness of that decision is a matter to be decided by the State of New Jersey, not this agency. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. |
|
ID: 2394yOpen Mr. Frederick H. Dambach Dear Mr. Dambach: This is in response to your letter requesting that I reconsider my conclusion in a July 26, 1989, letter to you interpreting emergency exit requirements contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in responding. As is explained below, after reconsideration, I must still conclude that exits located in the roof of a bus do not satisfy the requirement contained in S5.2 of Standard 217, that 40% of the required emergency exit space on a transit bus must be located on each side of the bus. Your August letter argues that roof exits must be counted in determining compliance with S5.2 because the standard does not specifically state that a side is that part of a bus that is perpendicular to the floor. Instead, relying upon provisions of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) regulations at 49 CFR Part 393, you assert that the side of a bus is any part to the left or right of the roof centerline. While this may be true under the FHWA regulations, those regulations are being used in a completely different context than Standard No. 217, and concern lighting and marker requirements and specifications for towing for motor carriers. Standard 217, on the other hand, specifies requirements for the operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits in buses to ensure readily accessible emergency egress from these vehicles. Because of the different purpose and context of Standard 217 and the FHWA regulations, the definition of the word "side" is not necessarily the same for those regulations. In fact, as I explained in detail in my previous letter to you, the structure and purpose of Standard 217 show that the word "side" has a different meaning in Standard 217 than it does when used by the FHWA in Part 393. Moreover, and contrary to the assertion in your letter, Standard 217 is not a subpart of Part 393. Standard 217 is found in 49 CFR Part 571. The Standard is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), administered by NHTSA. Under Federal law, these standards are applicable to manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles. On the other hand, Part 393, administered by the FHWA, is a part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which are applicable to motor carriers. Although NHTSA and FHWA coordinate with each other to avoid conflicts in our respective regulatory programs, the FHWA does not have authority over motor vehicle manufacturers. Likewise, NHTSA does not have authority over motor carriers. This agency has statutory authority to regulate the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Additionally, our statute prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. However, this agency has no authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. Hence, NHTSA cannot require the vehicles used in your company's fleet to comply with Standard 217 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the individual States are free to regulate the operation and use of vehicles within their borders, provided that those regulations do not contravene any Federal laws or regulations. In this case, the State of New Jersey has chosen to adopt the provisions of Standard 217 and make it applicable to vehicles operated within New Jersey. This choice by the State of New Jersey does not contravene any of this agency's statutes or regulations. Thus, while I appreciate that New Jersey's decision to apply Standard 217 to vehicles operated in the State may have caused you difficulties, the wisdom and fairness of that decision is a matter to be decided by the State of New Jersey, not this agency. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:4/9/90 |
1990 |
ID: 24545.drnOpenMs. Doris Schaller-Schnedl Dear Ms. Schaller-Schnedl: This responds to your June 7, 2002, letter asking whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards have definitions that are similar to those of the EEC for H-point and R-Point. You provided the following EEC definitions of H-point and R-point: H-point means the pivot center of the torso and thigh of the 3 DH machine installed in the vehicle seat []. The 'H' point is located in the center of the centerline of the device which is between the 'H' point sight buttons on either side of the 3 DH machine. The 'H' point corresponds theoretically to the 'R' point. R-point means a design point defined by the vehicle manufacturer for each seating position and established with respect to the three-dimensional reference system. For purposes of our safety standards, 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions, includes a definition for "H point," but not for "R-point." However, 571.3 defines "seating reference point," which is similar in some respects to the "R-point." "H point" is defined in 571.3 as: the mechanically hinged hip point of a manikin which simulates the actual pivot center of the human torso and thigh, described in SAE Recommended Practice J826, "Manikins for Use in Defining Vehicle Seating Accommodations," November 1962. "Seating reference point" (SgRP) is defined in 571.3 as: the unique design H-point, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 1984), which: (a) Establishes the rearmost normal design driving or riding position of each designated seating position, which includes consideration of all modes of adjustment, horizontal, vertical, and tilt, in a vehicle; (b) Has X, Y, and Z coordinates, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 1984), established relative to the designed vehicle structure; (c) Simulates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh; and (d) Is the reference point employed to position the two-dimensional drafting template with the 95th percentile leg described in SAE J826 (May 1987), or, if the drafting template with the 95th percentile leg cannot be positioned in the seating position, is located with the seat in its most rearward adjustment position. The H point and mostly SgRP are used in the test procedures of a number of NHTSA standards. They include: Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems; Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact; Standard No. 202, Head restraints; Standard No. 207, Seating systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection; Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems; and Standard No. 214, Side impact protection. For your information, we have enclosed a copy of a January 9, 2002, letter to Mr. Mike J. Gower of Trico Products (Europe) Ltd., which discusses a 1993 rulemaking that replaced a reference to "manikin H point with seat in rearmost position" in Standard No. 104 with a reference to "seating reference point." You also ask whether there is a requirement in the safety standards similar to that in the European Standards that, "the H-point has to lie within a certain distance from the R-point. (Square of 50 mm, 74/60/EEC)." While it is difficult to find a directly comparable requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) cited above, we believe Standard No. 208 comes close to it in the requirement of the "H" point location when positioning the 50th percentile dummy. You can find further details on the use of the "H" point and the "SgRP" in the FMVSSs by referring to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 49 CFR Part 571. Those without a hard copy of the CFR may access them in electronic form at www.access.gpo.gov/nara. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure
|
2002 |
ID: 2863oOpen Jay D. Starling, Manager Dear Mr. Starling: I am writing in response to your letter that requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation as to whether the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" is an item of "motor vehicle equipment", as defined in Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The product literature you enclosed with your letter describes the "G-33 Charge Saver" as a "12 Volt car battery maintenance system, designed to overcome natural battery self-discharge and drain from constant electrical loads...It is operated by simply placing it in sunlight on the dashboard and plugging it into the car lighter whenever the vehicle is parked." It also claims that the "G-33 Charge Saver" can help to: "Extend Battery Life Prevent Dead Batteries Provide Quick Starts." Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines, in part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle......(Emphasis added.) In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory" the agency has looked at the following two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and second, whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. From the product literature provided, the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" is advertised for use with a motor vehicle and appears to be marketed for the ordinary user of motor vehicles, with emphasis on the ease of installation of the charge saver. We would therefore consider your solar powered battery charger to be a vehicle accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Vehicle Safety Act. If the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" will be installed in new or used vehicles by a commercial business, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). These businesses could sell your product, but could not install it if the installation would adversely affect the vehicle's compliance with any FMVSS. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect. The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by installing the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. The Act also requires the recall and remedy of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determine that the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" contains such a defect, you must recall and repair or replace the item without charge to the purchaser. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#102 d:6/30/88 |
1988 |
ID: nht95-4.69OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: November 7, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: James J. Gregorio TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to 9.23.95 letter from James J. Gregorio to John Womack TEXT: Dear Mr. Gregorio: This responds to your letter of September 23, 1995, requesting" authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim." Your letter states: Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviates a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand c ontrols. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the car seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees. You enclosed a letter from your physician stating that recovery could take several years. In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accomodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below. I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situati ons, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since y our situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safe ty standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an appl icable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $ 1,000 per violation. Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standart No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter does not provide any information regarding why the modification to your seat cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition. However, in situations such as your where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public nee d. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modi fier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the sa fety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht95-7.34OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: November 7, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: James J. Gregorio TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to 9.23.95 letter from James J. Gregorio to John Womack TEXT: Dear Mr. Gregorio: This responds to your letter of September 23, 1995, requesting" authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim." Your letter states: Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviates a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand controls. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the car seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees. You enclosed a letter from your physician stating that recovery could take several years. In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accomodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below. I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $ 1,000 per violation. Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standart No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter does not provide any information regarding why the modification to your seat cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition. However, in situations such as your where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: X PrizeOpenKenneth N. Weinstein, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP Dear Mr. Weinstein: This responds to your request, on behalf of the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize (PIAXP) for a statement and/or interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the implications under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act) of vehicles participating in the PIAXP competitions operating on the public roads. You asked this question in light of the fact that the vehicles would not necessarily comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The issues raised by your request are addressed below. In short, given the specific facts related to the PIAXP competitions that you provided, including the limited nature of the operation of these vehicles on the public roads and the fact that the roads will be closed under local or State government supervision, it is our opinion that the Vehicle Safety Act would not have the effect of preventing these vehicles from participating in the competitions. Our opinion is based on the facts you provided and the analysis set forth below. The PIAXP is, as described in information available on the PIAXP website[1]: An international competition designed to inspire a new generation of viable, super fuel-efficient vehicles. The independent and technology-neutral competition is open to teams from around the world that can design, build and bring to market 100 MPGe (miles per gallon energy equivalent) vehicles that people want to buy, and that meet market needs for price, size, capability, safety and performance. The nature of the competition is described, in draft guidelines available on the PIAXP website, as follows: The competition will comprise two vehicle classes: Mainstream and Alternative. Mainstream vehicles will be required to carry four or more passengers, have four or more wheels, and allow for a 200-mile range. Alternative-class vehicles will be required to carry two or more passengers, have no constraints on the number of wheels, and allow for a 100-mile range. All vehicles will need to meet requirements for performance and features to make the cars attractive to consumers. The competition will culminate with two dramatic, long-distance stage races in 2009-2010 a Qualifying Race and the Grand Prize Final Race. Race courses will reflect typical consumer driving patterns during numerous stages, in varied terrain, communities, and weather conditions. To win, vehicles must complete both races with the lowest overall time averaged over all scoring stages while still meeting the requirements for 100 MPGe fuel economy and low emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. The $10 million prize purse will be split 3:1 between the winners of the Mainstream and Alternative classes. You provided the following description of the manner in which the PIAXP races would be conducted: Competition vehicles will participate in stage races designed to test the vehicles under typical driving conditions. To ensure adequate safety, pre-race inspections will verify that vehicles have PIAXP-required safety equipment and features. And pre-race performance tests will verify that the vehicles meet PIAXP braking and stability requirements. These safety requirements were established by a Working Group that includes current and former NHTSA experts. Some race stages will be conducted on closed tracks, others on public roads. For the stages conducted on public roads, vehicles will start one-at-a-time and will be timed separately. No side-by-side driving will be permitted, with strict rules on giving way to a faster vehicle. Vehicles will have to obey all speed limits and other traffic regulations. The public roads will be closed to all non-race traffic during the race stages (these may be rolling closures that cover the full extent of the PIAXP vehicles on the course as is often done for running and cycling events). Road closures will be supervised by local city and state governments, and implemented by local police and other agencies. Vehicles will also participate in non-race demonstration events to showcase them to the public, to government officials, and to the media. These events will largely take place at closed public-private venues e.g., large parking lots. If any of these non-race demonstrations do take place on public roads, they will do so under the same conditions described above (closed roads supervised by local city and state governments). Most vehicles will be shipped from one event to the next, rather than driven. We may organize a PIAXP-sponsored [convoy] to drive in parade-format from one event to the next, but any such [convoy] will likewise occur over closed roads, as described above. Any team that wishes to drive a noncompliant vehicle independently between events (or under any other circumstances on public roads) is responsible for obtaining any necessary exemptions and/or permits that might be needed to meet all legal requirements. As indicated above, you asked us to address the implications under the Vehicle Safety Act of operation on the public roads of vehicles participating in the PIAXP competitions in light of the fact that the vehicles would not necessarily comply with applicable FMVSSs. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), with certain exceptions, 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 unless it complies with applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. The primary issue raised by your request is whether operation on the public roads of vehicles participating in the PIAXP competitions would constitute introducing the vehicles in interstate commerce. Since we are only addressing the implications of the Vehicle Safety Act with respect to the operation of these vehicles in the PIAXP competitions, the prohibitions on manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, and importing noncomplying vehicles are not relevant to the analysis. Given the limited nature of the operation of these vehicles on the public roads as part of participating in the PIAXP competitions, including the fact that the roads will be closed under local or State government supervision for the races, possible demonstrations, and convoys between events, it is our opinion that such operation on the public roads would not constitute an introduction into interstate commerce for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. We note that this opinion does not cover independent driving on the public roads by teams between events, or other activities not specifically addressed in this letter. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:VSA d.1/16/09 |
2009 |
ID: 10333Open Mr. Harold Sousa Dear Mr. Sousa: This responds to your letter asking about whether you can import a product into the United States. You stated that the product uses air pressure from a vehicle's brake system to "prevent the air from escaping from the tires of trucks and buses" and "keeps air pressure in the case of punctur (sic)." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how this agency's requirements apply to the manufacture and importation of such a product. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regulates the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under our governing statute, the manufacturer must certify that its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Importers are included in the definition of "manufacturer" under our statute. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering a tire pressure device such as you describe. However, since this device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. If the device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. One relevant issue is whether your device is considered an integral part of the brake system in the sense that it would need to comply with certain of Standard No. 121's requirements. A related issue is whether certain parts of the device are considered brake hoses and therefore subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. We do not have sufficient information about your device to specifically address these issues. I can advise you, however, that your device would not be considered part of the braking system if it were separated from the vehicle's main braking system by a check valve in such way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device. Moreover, if your device is not considered to be part of the braking system, it would not be subject to Standard No. 106. If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a repair shop, the repair shop would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. You should also be aware that all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process, notices, orders, and decisions. This designation is to be mailed to the Chief Counsel of NHTSA. In accordance with 49 CFR 551.45, the designation must include the following information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. 7. The signature of one with authority to appoint the agency. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:551#121 d:1/4/95
|
1995 |
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.