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: aiam4097OpenMs. Carol Dingledy, Communications Supervisor, Cosco Inc., 2525 State Street, Columbus, IN 47201; Ms. Carol Dingledy Communications Supervisor Cosco Inc. 2525 State Street Columbus IN 47201; Dear Ms. Dingledy: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, askin several questions about the effects of an amendment to the buckle force requirements in Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Buckles used on child restraints manufactured on or after February 16, 1986, must release with a minimum of 9 pounds force and a maximum of 14 pounds force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981, and February 15, 1986, were required to release with a minimum of 12 pounds applied force and a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured before January 1, 1981, were required to release with a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. You asked with which buckle release force requirements replacement buckles provided by your company should comply. Assuming that the replacement buckles are to be installed by you or dealers, distributors, or repair businesses, the answer is that the buckles may, at your option, comply with either the release force requirements applicable to child restraint buckles as of the date of manufacture of the child restraint *or* with the current buckle release force requirements.; Standard No. 213, like all of our safety standards applicable to item of motor vehicle equipment, does not apply to the equipment after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies: '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....' Please note that these prohibitions do not apply to the child restraint owner rendering inoperative some element of design installed on his or her child restraint. Hence, replacement buckles that are sold to and installed by child restraint owners are not required to comply with the provisions of Standard No. 213.; However, if you as a manufacturer, or any dealers, distributors, o repair businesses were to remove complying buckles from a child restraint and replace them with buckles that did not comply with Standard No. 213, this would violate section 108(a)(2)(A). This result arises because buckles with the specified release force levels were installed on an item of motor vehicle equipment (the child restraint system) in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (Standard No. 213). Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies that each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) subjects the violator to a potential $1,000 civil penalty.; Assuming that you or your dealers and distributors will be installin the replacement buckles, section 108(a)(2)(A) give you an option of which release force requirements the replacement buckles must meet. In connection with several other standards that have been amended, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has stated its opinion that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business does *not* knowingly render inoperative an element of design by replacing components installed in satisfaction of a safety standard with other components used in newer items of the same type in satisfaction of the same standard, even if the newer version of the standard imposes less stringent performance requirements. See, for example, the enclosed opinion issued when Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, was amended, 42 FR 26279, May 23, 1977. In this context, this opinion means that child restraint manufacturers may install replacement buckles that either:; >>>1. comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213 as of the dat the child restraint was manufactured, or; 2. comply with the current requirements of Standard No. 213.<<< If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5043OpenMr. Peter E. Reinert Counsel - Transaction General Electric Company One Plastics Avenue Pittsfield, MA 01201; Mr. Peter E. Reinert Counsel - Transaction General Electric Company One Plastics Avenue Pittsfield MA 01201; "Dear Mr. Reinert: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked about the certification and marking responsibilities of your company, General Electric (GE), and your distributors under section S6 of Standard No. 205. This interpretation is based on my understanding of the statements in your letter as well as statements made by GE's representatives Mr. Timothy Commons and Mr. Bruce Torry in a July 8, 1992 meeting with Mr. Clark Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff. We understand that GE manufactures large sheets of LEXAN polycarbonate which are used in both motor vehicle and non-vehicle applications. You explained that under a contractual agreement with GE, your distributors have agreed to mark the LEXAN sheet with GE's manufacturer code mark and the symbol DOT (which you refer to as the DOT number). In other words, GE is sending LEXAN sheets without the manufacturer code mark and the symbol DOT to its distributors who then mark the sheets with this information before shipping them to their motor vehicle customers. You asked whether shipping LEXAN sheets without the manufacturer code mark and symbol DOT to GE's distributors is consistent with GE's responsibilities as a prime glazing material manufacturer having its own DOT number. I note that Mr. Commons and Mr. Torry raised additional questions about GE's certification responsibilities under Standard No. 205. Specifically, they questioned whether GE was a manufacturer of raw material rather than a prime glazing material manufacturer, and if GE were not a prime glazing material manufacturer, whether each of GE's distributors would be required to mark the LEXAN sheets with its own DOT number rather than GE's number. Your company's questions are addressed below. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles. Section S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials. Different marking and certification requirements apply depending upon whether an entity is a prime glazing material manufacturer or a manufacturer that cuts sections of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies. Further distinction in certification requirements for prime manufacturers depends on whether the glazing is designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, or whether the glazing is designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. None of the marking and certification requirements would apply to manufacturers of raw materials. Section S6.1 defines a 'prime glazing material manufacturer' as 'one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.' If an entity performs any one of these operations, it must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205. Before addressing the question posed in your letter, I will respond to your representatives' question concerning whether GE might be a manufacturer of a raw material and thus not be subject to Standard No. 205's marking and certification requirements. In support of this view, they stated that distributors frequently undertake what they termed significant fabricating operations (e.g., drilling, routing, and polishing the glazing) beyond merely cutting the glazing, and thus in such situations should be considered the 'prime glazing material manufacturer.' Notwithstanding your representatives' contentions, we consider GE to be the prime glazing material manufacturer in the situation at hand. GE's activities involve a fundamental manufacturing operation that constitutes fabrication of glazing. In contrast, the distributor's operations, though arguably more extensive than mere cutting, constitute relatively minor finishing operations to an item of glazing that has been fabricated by another company. Since GE fabricates the glazing, it is the prime glazing material manufacturer under S6.1. This determination renders moot your representatives' follow-up question about the distributor's marking responsibilities if GE were not a prime glazing material manufacturer. I will now summarize the marking and certification requirements that apply to GE, as a prime glazing material manufacturer, and to its distributors. S6.1 requires every prime glazing material manufacturer to mark all glazing materials it manufactures with the following information in accordance with section 6 of the American National Standard (ANS) Z26: (1) the words 'American National Standard' or the characters 'AS,' (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. In addition to the information required by S6.1, if an item of glazing material is designed to be used in a specific motor vehicle, then S6.2 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify such an item of glazing with the symbol 'DOT' and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. The purpose of requiring the manufacturer's code mark is to help NHTSA identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Section S6.3 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard No. 205 for each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles pursuant to the requirements of section 114 of the Safety Act. Under section 114, certification of an item of glazing 'may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.' Sections S6.4 and S6.5 set forth requirements that apply to each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies for use in a motor vehicle or camper. Section S6.4 requires the manufacturer or distributor to mark that material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section S6.5 requires the manufacturer or distributor to certify that its product complies with Standard No. 205, pursuant to section 114. You asked whether shipping LEXAN sheets without GE's manufacturer code mark and the symbol DOT to GE's distributors is consistent with GE's responsibilities as a prime glazing material manufacturer that has its own DOT number. Under the above requirements, the only type of glazing that a prime glazing material manufacturer is required to mark with its manufacturer code mark and the symbol 'DOT' is glazing designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper. GE, as a prime glazing material manufacturer, is not required to mark glazing with the symbol 'DOT' and its manufacturer's code mark if such glazing is not designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper. As for sheets of glazing that a manufacturer or distributor will cut into components for motor vehicles, GE and GE's distributors may contractually agree to have the distributor mark the LEXAN sheets and glazing cut from such sheets with GE's manufacturer code mark. However, there is no requirement for either GE or its distributors to so mark the glazing. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4591OpenMabel Y. Bullock, Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629; Mabel Y. Bullock Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh NC 27602-0629; "Dear Ms. Bullock: Thank you for your letter to Ms. Susan Schruth of m staff, regarding North Carolina General Statute 20-127, Windshields must be unobstructed. I regret the delay in responding. You enclosed a copy of the statute, the regulations implementing it, a copy of a December 18, l987 legal memorandum prepared by your department concluding that a State statute or regulation allowing 35% light transmittance through windows in motor vehicles would be preempted by current Federal safety laws and standards regulating this same subject matter, and a copy of a May 6, 1988 letter from the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) to Mr. William S. Hiatt, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for North Carolina, asserting that the North Carolina statute was not preempted by Federal laws and regulations. You asked for my opinion as to whether the North Carolina statute conflicts with any provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. /1381 et seq.) or with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.1 et seq.). Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' Because of this statutory requirement, any manufacturer, importer, or dealer that installs solar films or other sun screen devices on new glazing materials or the glazing installed in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205. The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. See section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). Both before and after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including tinting, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation. Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles. The authority of States to regulate glazing is affected by section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. /1392(d)). This section provides that: w henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title 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 as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard. The effect of this provision of the Safety Act, with respect to the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, is to expressly prohibit any State from specifying some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent specified in Standard No. 205 for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Each of the individual States has authority to enforce identical standards (i.e., a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Additionally, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in that State. Having provided this background, we want to turn now to the results of our review of the North Carolina statute and regulations, along with your office's memorandum concluding that the statute is preempted by Federal law. 1. New vehicles and new glazing for use in vehicles. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted if it specifies any requirements other than the requirements of Standard No. 205 (minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new vehicles or for new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act and Standard No. 205 require all new vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles to be delivered to the first purchaser with a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Section 103(d) of the Safety Act expressly preempts any non-identical State standard on the subject of window tinting. Section 20-127(d) of the North Carolina statute appears to permit a single application of tinted film with a light transmittance of as little as 35 percent to be applied to vehicle glazing after factory delivery, but before sale to the public. This provision is preempted by Federal law, as is any other provision of North Carolina law which specifies that new glazing and glazing in new vehicles shall have some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205. 2. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted by Federal law if it permits the commercial installation of sunscreen materials so that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205. This conclusion is based on the conflict between the North Carolina statute and the 'render inoperative' provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That provision prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or an item of glazing with any of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. Apart from the issue of preemption, I want to note that the provisions of State law cannot alter the effect of the 'render inoperative' prohibition in Federal law. Regardless of how North Carolina law treats the combination of the glazing and the tinting, if it results in less than 70 percent light transmittance, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on a vehicle would be liable for the Federal civil penalty discussed above. 3. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by individual owners themselves after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. As noted above, Federal law does not regulate modifications that individual owners themselves make to their vehicles or glazing after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, even if those modifications result in the vehicles or glazing no longer complying with the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance. The State of North Carolina is free to establish whatever restrictions, if any, it deems appropriate on individual owner modifications, without regard to the requirements of Standard No. 205. To the extent that the North Carolina statute seeks to address these individual owner modifications, it would not be preempted by Federal law. 4. Requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State of North Carolina. An individual State is free to establish whatever requirements it deems appropriate for vehicles to be registered in the State, provided that those State requirements would not prohibit the registration of vehicles that complied with the requirements of the Federal safety standards. Thus, the State of North Carolina is free to permit vehicles that do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 to be registered in North Carolina. To the extent that the North Carolina window tinting statute seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, it would not be preempted by Federal law. We have also reviewed the May 6, 1988 letter from MEMA to Mr. Hiatt, in which MEMA discusses why it believes North Carolina's statute would not be preempted by Federal law. The MEMA discussion does not address the 'render inoperative' provision in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits commercial businesses from adversely affecting the compliance of elements of design installed in a vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with a safety standard, regardless of whether the vehicle is new or used. As was previously stated, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from ever installing window tinting material for the owner of a car if the combination of the original glazing and the tinting material results in less than 70 percent light transmittance through any window of the car. To summarize, the North Carolina statute would be preempted to the extent that it seeks to permit some level of light transmittance other than that specified in Standard No. 205 for glazing in vehicles prior to the first purchase of the vehicles in good faith for purposes other than resale. Similarly, the statute would be preempted to the extent it seeks to permit the commercial installation of sunscreen materials with the result that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. However, the North Carolina statute would not be preempted to the extent that it seeks to regulate the modifications that owners themselves can make to their vehicles or to the extent that it seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, even if those requirements differ from those specified in Standard No. 205. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4640OpenMr. Bernie Cantleberry 5958 Maplewood Road Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44l24; Mr. Bernie Cantleberry 5958 Maplewood Road Mayfield Heights Ohio 44l24; "Dear Mr. Cantleberry: This responds to your letter concerning Safet Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked several questions about the standard's requirements for parking brakes. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Your first question concerns section S5.2. That section requires specified vehicles to be 'manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement . . . .' You asked what is meant by a 'parking brake system of a friction type with a mechanical means.' In understanding section S5.2, I believe it is helpful to focus on three aspects of the language quoted above. First, a vehicle must be 'manufactured with a parking brake system.' The term 'parking brake' is defined in 49 CFR Part 57l.3 as 'a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle.' Second, the required parking brake system must be 'of a friction type,' i.e., it must prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle by means of friction. For example, a parking brake which presses a brake shoe against a brake drum operates by friction, whereas the parking pawl of an automatic transmission does not. Third, the required parking brake system must have a 'solely mechanical means to retain engagement.' Thus, the parking brake cannot be held by non-mechanical means such as fluid, air or electricity. Your second question concerns section S5.2.2. You asked whether it is necessary to meet S5.2.2.l, S5.2.2.2, and S5.2.2.3 (i.e., all three subsections) in order to comply with section S5.2.2, or just one of the subsections. Section S5.2.2 provides that '(a) vehicle of a type described in S5.2.l at the option of the manufacturer may meet the requirements of S5.2.2.l, S5.2.2.2, and S5.2.2.3 instead of the requirements of S5.2.l,' if the vehicle has a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism, and the parking mechanism must be engaged before the ignition key can be removed. (Emphasis added.) Given section S5.2.2's use of the word 'and' (as highlighted above), it is necessary to meet the requirements of all three subsections in order to comply with that section's compliance option. You also asked whether a vehicle which has a parking control in the transmission must also have a hand or foot operated control for the brake system. In responding to this question, I assume that the term 'parking control in the transmission' refers to a parking pawl. As noted above, a vehicle manufactured with a parking pawl alone, without an additional parking brake, would not meet section S5.2's requirement that the vehicle be 'manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement . . . .' Thus, a vehicle which has a parking control in the transmission must also have an additional parking brake 'of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement. . . .' Finally, you asked whether a vehicle with a hydraulic locking system would be sufficient to meet the requirements specified in S5.2.2. This question was asked both for a vehicle that has a parking control in the transmission and for a vehicle with a manual transmission. The requirement that a vehicle be 'manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement' cannot be met by a hydraulic locking system, since such the parking brakes on such a system are held by fluid pressure rather than by 'a solely mechanical means.' Thus, regardless of whether a vehicle has a parking pawl or has a manual transmission, a hydraulic locking system cannot be used to meet Standard No. l05's parking brake requirements. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4949OpenMr. Woodruff Carroll Carroll, Carroll, Davidson, & Young The White Memorial Building Suite 206 100 East Washington St. Syracuse, NY 13202; Mr. Woodruff Carroll Carroll Carroll Davidson & Young The White Memorial Building Suite 206 100 East Washington St. Syracuse NY 13202; "Dear Mr. Carroll: This responds to your letter inquiring about ho NHTSA's regulations relate to snowplows. Ms. Kathleen DeMeter, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, has already responded to your Freedom of Information request in a letter dated January 6, 1992. I am pleased to have this opportunity to further explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. A snow plow that is designed and intended to be attached to a motor vehicle would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, within the meaning of the Safety Act. However, NHTSA has not issued any specific standards setting forth performance requirements for snow plows. While there are no safety standards directly applicable to snow plows, the following circumstances are relevant to equipping motor vehicles with snow plows. If before the first consumer purchase, the original equipment manufacturer or an alterer equips a motor vehicle with a snow plow, the manufacturer or alterer must certify that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards when equipped with the snow plow. This leads to the question of what conditions would be used to determine if the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards when equipped with a snow plow. This question is answered in the definition of 'unloaded vehicle weight' set forth in 49 CFR 571.3. 'Unloaded vehicle weight,' which is used to determine a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating for the purposes of the tire and braking standards and to specify the test conditions for NHTSA's crash testing standards, is defined as 'the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use.' Thus, those parts of the snow plow which are permanently attached to the vehicle and any snow plow parts that are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle would be in place and their weight would be considered in determining compliance with applicable standards. However, the snow plow blade and any other parts of the snow plow that are ordinarily removed when the snow plow is not in use would not be attached to the vehicle and the weight of these parts would not be considered in determining compliance with the applicable safety standards. Another relevant provision of Federal law with respect to equipping a vehicle with a snow plow is 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies that, 'no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, 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.' If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business added a snow plow to a motor vehicle in such a way that any of the elements of design installed on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard were 'rendered inoperative,' that entity would have violated the Safety Act. This agency also has authority to investigate allegations that motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects related to motor vehicle safety, and to order the manufacturer to notify owners and to remedy without charge any vehicles or items of equipment determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, as provided in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420.) If there were indications that any snow plows contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would investigate and take appropriate action. Of course, as with any investigation of alleged safety-related defects, the outcome would depend on the facts of the specific investigation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3351OpenMr. S. A. Spretnjak, Excel Industries, Inc., 1120 North Main Street, Elkhart, IN 46514; Mr. S. A. Spretnjak Excel Industries Inc. 1120 North Main Street Elkhart IN 46514; Dear Mr. Spretnjak: This responds to your August 15, 1980, letter asking several question about your responsibilities for complying with Federal safety standards. You state that you manufacture a sun roof that can be installed by either an original vehicle manufacturer or a subsequent vehicle alterer.; Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to note tha Federal safety standards apply to different manufacturers depending upon the standard involved. Equipment standards are the responsibility of equipment manufacturers while vehicle standards fall within the responsibilities of a vehicle manufacturer or alterer. For sun roofs, Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, is an equipment standard and might apply to an equipment manufacturer who manufacturers sun roofs if they contain any glazing materials. Some vehicle safety standards might be affected also by the installation of a sun roof. The installer of a sun roof would be entirely responsible for compliance with all of the vehicle safety standards affected by the sun roof installation.; Your first question asks who certifies the sun roof if it is installe as original equipment on a vehicle. The equipment manufacturer who manufacturers the glazing would be responsible for certifying the glazing in accordance with Standard No. 205. The installer of the sun roof, the vehicle manufacturer, would certify the vehicle in compliance with all of the safety standards.; Second, you ask the same question as above with respect to a va conversion or motor home construction. Again, the equipment manufacturer would certify to the glazing standard, and the van converter or motor home builder would certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, *Certification*.; Third, you ask who must certify if a dealer adds a sun roof before sal of the vehicle to its first purchaser. The equipment manufacturer certifies to the glazing standard, and the installer of the device would attach an alterer's label to the vehicle in accordance with Part 567.7.; Your fourth question asks who certifies if a body shop adds the su roof for a vehicle owner. As always, the sun roof glazing is certified by the equipment manufacturer. Businesses that modify used vehicles are not required to recertify those vehicles in compliance with any of the safety standards. Such businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard.; Fifth, you ask whether as a window manufacturer your onl responsibility is to certify to Standards Nos. 205 and 217. As stated earlier, you would have responsibility to certify to Standard No. 205. However, Standard No. 217 is a vehicle standard, and only a vehicle manufacturer or alterer has responsibility for certifying compliance with that standard.; Your final question asks about testing for compliance with the safet standards. Testing is usually conducted by vehicle manufacturers for those standards that apply to vehicles. For standards that apply only to equipment, the testing is usually done by the equipment manufacturer. When a vehicle is altered and the alterer must attach a label indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards, the alterer can certify compliance through any means that, in the exercise of due care, he or she feels is sufficient to assure compliance with the safety standards. Methods available to alterers include: retesting, simulated testing, mathmatical (sic) modeling, or any other device appropriate for assessing continued compliance with the standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3353OpenMr. S. A. Spretnjak, Excel Industries, Inc., 1120 North Main Street, Elkhart, IN 46514; Mr. S. A. Spretnjak Excel Industries Inc. 1120 North Main Street Elkhart IN 46514; Dear Mr. Spretnjak: This responds to your August 15, 1980, letter asking several question about your responsibilities for complying with Federal safety standards. You state that you manufacture a sun roof that can be installed by either an original vehicle manufacturer or a subsequent vehicle alterer.; Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to note tha Federal safety standards apply to different manufacturers depending upon the standard involved. Equipment standards are the responsibility of equipment manufacturers while vehicle standards fall within the responsibilities of a vehicle manufacturer or alterer. For sun roofs, Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, is an equipment standard and might apply to an equipment manufacturer who manufacturers sun roofs if they contain any glazing materials. Some vehicle safety standards might be affected also by the installation of a sun roof. The installer of a sun roof would be entirely responsible for compliance with all of the vehicle safety standards affected by the sun roof installation.; Your first question asks who certifies the sun roof if it is installe as original equipment on a vehicle. The equipment manufacturer who manufacturers the glazing would be responsible for certifying the glazing in accordance with Standard No. 205. The installer of the sun roof, the vehicle manufacturer, would certify the vehicle in compliance with all of the safety standards.; Second, you ask the same question as above with respect to a va conversion or motor home construction. Again, the equipment manufacturer would certify to the glazing standard, and the van converter or motor home builder would certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, *Certification*.; Third, you ask who must certify if a dealer adds a sun roof before sal of the vehicle to its first purchaser. The equipment manufacturer certifies to the glazing standard, and the installer of the device would attach an alterer's label to the vehicle in accordance with Part 567.7.; Your fourth question asks who certifies if a body shop adds the su roof for a vehicle owner. As always, the sun roof glazing is certified by the equipment manufacturer. Businesses that modify used vehicles are not required to recertify those vehicles in compliance with any of the safety standards. Such businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard.; Fifth, you ask whether as a window manufacturer your onl responsibility is to certify to Standards Nos. 205 and 217. As stated earlier, you would have responsibility to certify to Standard No. 205. However, Standard No. 217 is a vehicle standard, and only a vehicle manufacturer or alterer has responsibility for certifying compliance with that standard.; Your final question asks about testing for compliance with the safet standards. Testing is usually conducted by vehicle manufacturers for those standards that apply to vehicles. For standards that apply only to equipment, the testing is usually done by the equipment manufacturer. When a vehicle is altered and the alterer must attach a label indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards, the alterer can certify compliance through any means that, in the exercise of due care, he or she feels is sufficient to assure compliance with the safety standards. Methods available to alterers include: retesting, simulated testing, mathmatical (sic) modeling, or any other device appropriate for assessing continued compliance with the standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4795OpenRoger C. Fairchild, Esq. Shutler & Low 14500 Avion Parkway, Suite 300 Chantilly, VA 22021-1101; Roger C. Fairchild Esq. Shutler & Low 14500 Avion Parkway Suite 300 Chantilly VA 22021-1101; "Dear Mr. Fairchild: This responds to your inquiry about Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standards 109, 110, 119, and 120 on tires and rim selection (49 CFR 571.109, 571.110, 571.119, and 571.120), asking about the applicability of certain provisions in the Tire and Rim Association (TRA) Year Book, which those Federal safety standards incorporate by reference. As explained below, we agree that the adjustment factors in the TRA Year Book for inflation pressures and load ratings at different speeds are not applicable in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ('Vehicle Safety Act,' 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not approve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000. Section S4.3 of Standard 109 requires a new pneumatic tire for passenger cars to be labeled with certain information including one size designation, the maximum inflation pressure, and the maximum load rating. S6.5 of Standard 119 has similar marking requirements for tires on vehicles other than passenger cars. In particular, section 4.2.1(c) of Standard 109 and section 6.5(d) of Standard 119 require tires to be labeled with a maximum load rating not less than the lowest of any specified values in the manufacturer's submission or in a listed publication such as the TRA Yearbook, for tires of that size designation, type and each appropriate inflation pressure. For passenger car tires, these inflation pressures and load ratings are specified in tables in section one of the TRA Yearbook entitled, ''P' Type Tires Used on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons' and ''T' Type Spare Tires for Temporary Use on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons.' For tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, these inflation pressures and load ratings are specified in the tables in section 2 of the TRA Yearbook. Question One You first asked whether the Federal safety standards incorporate an independent vehicle speed adjustment factor in determining the 'vehicle normal load' and 'vehicle maximum load.' Your question was based on provisions in the TRA Year Book which apply such a vehicle load adjustment factor for certain tires rated for a maximum speed above 130 mph. As you are aware, S4.2 of Standard 110 provides that the vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating marked on the tire, and the vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in Standard 109's high speed performance test. You are correct that an adjustment factor based on the vehicle's maximum speed capacity is not required to be used in determining compliance with Standard 110 and 120. As you noted, Standard 110's requirement, as specified in S4.2.2, takes into account an adjustment for high speed use by requiring that the normal vehicle load on a tire must not exceed the test load used in Standard 109's high speed performance test in S5.5 (i.e. 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating). Based on this provision and Standard No. 110's use of the terms 'vehicle maximum load' and 'maximum loaded vehicle weight,' we interpret S4.2 as applying to normal vehicle uses and not special high speed applications. In fact, incorporating a load adjustment factor based on speeds of 130 to 168 mph, as the TRA provision does, would be contrary to motor vehicle safety if it encouraged vehicle operation at speeds far exceeding safe operating speeds. Therefore, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards. Question Two You also asked about a vehicle speed adjustment factor for the inflation pressure with passenger cars. As you explained, the TRA Year Book requires that the 'speed category of the tire must match or exceed the theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle (i.e., actual maximum speed, as adjusted for tire inflation pressure using another factor specified by TRA). TRA sets forth two speed categories: speeds up to 210 km/h (130 mph) and speeds above 210 km/h (130 mph). As with the vehicle load adjustment factor which concerns normal vehicle applications, you are correct that an adjustment factor for inflation pressure based on the vehicle's maximum speed is not required to be used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards. Question Three You then asked about the applicability to the Federal standards of TRA's recommended adjustments for tire inflation pressure and 'service load' for tires used on trucks and buses, depending on the maximum speed capability of the vehicle. As with the adjustment factors for passenger car tires, these adjustment factors are not relevant for compliance with Standard 119 or 120. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4681OpenMs. Linda L. Conrad Nives Ford, Inc. 15690 South Harlem Avenue Orland Park, IL 60462; Ms. Linda L. Conrad Nives Ford Inc. 15690 South Harlem Avenue Orland Park IL 60462; "Dear Ms. Conrad: This responds to your letter asking what lega obligations are imposed on car dealers to replace air bags on used vehicles accepted as trade-ins. Your letter explained that your dealership has received, as a trade-in, a 1989 car that had a driver-side air bag as original equipment. According to your letter, the car had been in a crash and the air bag was deployed. Hence, when this car was taken in trade by your dealership, its air bag was not functional. You asked whether any law requires you to replace the deployed air bag with a new air bag before selling the car. In response to your question, we can advise you as follows: (1) Federal law does not require a car dealer to replace a deployed air bag in a used vehicle, (2) a dealer may be required by State law to replace that equipment, or be liable for failure to do so, and (3) our agency strongly encourages dealers to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. We will first address the Federal legal issues, since our agency administers the Federal vehicle safety law. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The requirement for automatic crash protection was phased-in for passenger cars, beginning with 1987 model year new cars. That phase-in is now completed, and all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' (Emphasis added) Because of this statutory requirement, your dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag if you know that the air bag has been deployed. However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) 'shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' In other words, once the 1989 Chrysler LeBaron described in your letter was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Federal law to comply with Standard No. 208. After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle ... will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. In the case of passenger cars equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' the air bags, except as needed to make repairs to the car. When any such repairs are completed, the car must be returned to the customer with the air bag capable of functioning at least as well as it was able to do when the car was received by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business. Any violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, if your dealership purchases a used car that was originally equipped with an air bag pursuant to Standard No. 208, and the air bag was deployed before your dealership took possession of the car, Federal law does not require your dealership to replace the deployed air bag with a functioning air bag before you resell the car. Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, dealers may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. You should be aware that the individual States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning when the used vehicles are sold. You may wish to contact the State of Illinois to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations that would apply in these circumstances. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Illinois regarding potential liability in tort for your dealership in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. The potential for finding a car dealer liable may be greater when that dealer sells a used vehicle without one of the originally-installed safety systems intact and functional. As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy recommendation that dealers always replace air bags following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. Indeed, we have long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash, including the safety belts and brakes, as well as the air bag systems now being installed in passenger cars. While air bags are in some respects 'supplemental' to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Those vehicles are designed so that the air bag will always work, even if the safety belt is not worn, and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to the purchaser of the used car described in your letter -- in the vehicle owner's manual, from the carmaker and insurance companies, and from NHTSA and other safety groups -- would identify the car as one equipped with a driver-side air bag. The purchaser may well expect a used car to provide the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer. In short, from the standpoints of auto safety, dealer risk management, consumer protection, customer relations, and good business practices, NHTSA strongly advocates the replacment of deployed air bags. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3348OpenMr. S.A. Spretnjak,Excel Industries, Inc., 1120 North Main Street, Elkhart, Indiana 46514; Mr. S.A. Spretnjak Excel Industries Inc. 1120 North Main Street Elkhart Indiana 46514; Dear Mr. Spretnjak: This responds to your August 15, 1980, letter asking several question about your responsibilities for complying with Federal safety standards. You state that you manufacture a sun roof that can be installed by either an original vehicle manufacturer or a subsequent vehicle alterer.; Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to note tha Federal safety standards apply to different manufacturers depending upon the standard involved. Equipment standards are the responsibility of equipment manufacturers while vehicle standards fall within the responsibilities of a vehicle manufacturer or alterer. For sun roofs, Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, is an equipment standard and might apply to an equipment manufacturer who manufacturers sun roofs if they contain any glazing materials. Some vehicle safety standards might be affected also by the installation of a sun roof. The installer of a sun roof would be entirely responsible for compliance with all of the vehicle safety standards affected by the sun roof installation.; Your first question asks who certifies the sun roof if it is installe as original equipment on a vehicle. The equipment manufacturer who manufacturers the glazing would be responsible for certifying the glazing in accordance with Standard No. 205. The installer of the sun roof, the vehicle manufacturer, would certify the vehicle in compliance with all of the safety standards.; Second, you ask the same question as above with respect to a va conversion or motor home construction. Again, the equipment manufacturer would certify to the glazing standard, and the van converter or motor home builder would certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, *Certification*.; Third, you ask who must certify if a dealer adds a sun roof before sal of the vehicle to its first purchaser. The equipment manufacturer certifies to the glazing standard, and the installer of the device would attach an alterer's label to the vehicle in accordance with Part 567.7.; Your fourth question asks who certifies if a body shop adds the su roof for a vehicle owner. As always, the sun roof glazing is certified by the equipment manufacturer. Businesses that modify used vehicles are not required to recertify those vehicles in compliance with any of the safety standards. Such businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard.; Fifth, you ask whether as a window manufacturer your onl responsibility is to certify to Standards Nos. 205 and 217. As stated earlier, you would have responsibility to certify to Standard No. 205. However, Standard No. 217 is a vehicle standard, and only a vehicle manufacturer or alterer has responsibility for certifying compliance with that standards.; Your final question asks about testing for compliance with the safet standards. Testing is usually conducted by vehicle manufacturers for those standards that apply to vehicles. For standards that apply only to equipment, the testing is altered and the alterer must attach a label indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards, the alterer can certify compliance through any means that, in the exercise of due care, he or she fells is sufficient to assure compliance with the safety standards. Methods available to alterers include: retesting, simulated testing, mathematical modeling, or any other device appropriate for assessing continued compliance with the standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
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.