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: aiam4246OpenMr. H. Tsujishita, Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., 1. Daihatsu- Cho, Ikeda City, Osaka Prefecture, *JAPAN*; Mr. H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co. Ltd. 1. Daihatsu- Cho Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture *JAPAN*; Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter dated October 30, 1986, seeking a interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, *Bumper Standard* and seeking our comments on sample reports required under several of our regulations. This letter addresses your question about our bumper standard first, and then comments on your sample reports.; You asked about one of the protective criteria specified in sectio 581.5(c) of Part 581. Part 581 requires vehicles to meet the damage criteria of that section after specified test impacts.; Section 581.5(c)(8) states: >>>The *exterior surfaces* shall have no separations of surfac materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact, except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. (Emphasis added.)<<<; You stated that you understand 'exterior surfaces' to refer to th exterior body surface which can be observed without the removal of any components, and that it does not mean the body surface which cannot be observed unless components are removed. Based on this understanding, you stated that you believe that two areas of a car, identified in an attached drawing as Area A and Area B, need not conform to the no damage requirement. Both Area A, a radiator support panel located directly under the headlamp, and Area, (sic) B, a fender apron located below the headlamp but along the side of the car, cannot be observed unless the bumper assembly is removed.; You understanding of 'exterior surface,' with respect to Areas A and of your drawing, is correct. Those areas are not exterior surfaces, because they are located behind the bumper assembly and cannot be observed unless that assembly is removed.; *Sample Reports* 1. 49 CFR Part 565, *Vehicle Identification Number - Conten Requirements*; Assuming that the Daihatsu is the only make and type of vehicle yo will sell in the United States, the submission of the unique identifier would comply with S565.6(b). If you are planning to sell other makes, you would also have to include information on those makes in this submission.; The deciphering information would be sufficient under S565.5(d) excep for the information about the engine type. The information you suggest providing describes the engine only as a 'CB'. The term 'engine type is defined at S565.3(d) as 'a power source with *defined* characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement and net brake horsepower.' None of these factors can be deciphered from your 'CB' marking. The deciphering information should indicate whether this is a gasoline or diesel engine, the number of cylinders, engine displacement, and net brake horsepower. With this modification, the sample report would comply with the requirements of Part 565.; 2. 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification* The sample identifying information from Daihatsu is sufficient for th purposes of Part 566.; You also asked how accurate this identification must be with respect t the GVWR ranges of the vehicles. As you noted, S566.5(c) requires manufacturers to submit the 'approximate ranges' of GVWR for each type of motor vehicle produced by the manufacturer. The agency explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule that it was seeking only basic information on the vehicles produced by the manufacturer. *See* 36 FR 7970, at 7971, April 28, 1971. Thus, if you wish to state that you produce passenger cars with a GVWR between 2300 and 2500 pounds, as suggested in your letter, that information would satisfy the requirements of Part 566.; You also asked the purpose of requiring the Part 566 report. Th purpose was explained as follows in the notice of proposed rulemaking:; >>>In order to carry out the provisions of the Act, it is ofte necessary to have certain basic information about the manufacturers of motor vehicles or vehicle equipment subject to the Act. This is particularly so in the area of enforcement and in carrying out the several requirements for communication, inspection, and reporting. It is necessary to have centrally organized and collected information regarding the manufacturer's corporate status, mailing address, items manufactured, and manufacturing location. Moreover, it is necessary to assemble this information so as to make it readily accessible to those having enforcement responsibility under the Act, and provide a means for identifying and classifying manufacturers according to the types of motor vehicles or equipment which they manufacture. A system is also needed whereby NHTSA can provide information to manufacturers of various types of vehicles or equipment. 36 FR 7971, April 28, 1971.<<<; 3. 49 CFR S551.45 *Designation of Agent* You first asked whether your sample designation of agent conforms wit the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45. It does not. Section 551.45 specifies that a designation of agent must include the following six items of information:; 1. A certification by the person or persons signing the designatio that it 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.; Your sample contains no such certification. 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer.; This information is set forth only on the letterhead of you stationery. If the corporate name set forth on your stationery is the full legal name, it would satisfy this requirement. If that is not the full legal name, however, the full legal name must be separately shown. The same principle applies to the requirements to submit your principal place of business and mailing address.; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear its name.; It is impossible for us to determine where there are no such marks, i the Daihatsu symbol on your letterhead is the only such mark, or if you have not satisfied this requirement.; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.; There is not such statement in your sample. 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the manufacturer.; Your sample would satisfy this requirement. 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. Your sample would satisfy this requirement. You then asked what the designated agent does, and whether all report had to be submitted to this agency via the designated agent. The designated agent acts as the agent for foreign manufacturers upon whom service of process, notices, orders, and decisions may be made *for and on behalf of the manufacturer*. Please note that both your designation of agent and acceptance erroneously state that such service may be made by or on behalf of the *agent*. Under the due process clause of our Constitution, a party cannot be bound by the outcome of a legal proceeding unless he or she has been given notice of such proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. Since we cannot go into a Japanese court, the U.S. government must have some device by which it can ensure that a foreign manufacturer is given proper notice of any proceedings affecting it in the United States. Thus, the designation of an agent by Daihatsu helps to ensure that the company will be fully and promptly apprised of any governmental action involving the company.; Hence, foreign manufacturers are *not* required to submit report through their designated agents - the designated agent is only a means for this agency to serve process and so forth on the foreign manufacturer. In fact, we recommend that foreign manufacturers submit reports and other correspondence directly to NHTSA, so as to facilitate the exchange of information.; 4. 49 CFR Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* The sample report you submitted is exactly that which is specified i Figure 2 of S575.104. It would therefore comply with S575.6(a) and S575.104(d)(1)(iii). Please note that there are typographical errors for the words 'treadwear' and 'passenger' in the sample you submitted.; 5. 49 CFR S575.101, *Vehicle Stopping Distance* Your stopping distance sample report is in the format specified i Figure 1 of S575.101. Accordingly, it would satisfy the requirements of S575.101(c).; 6. 49 CFR Part 537, *Automotive Fuel Economy Reports* Your sample fuel economy report, including the statement as t representativeness, satisfies the requirements of Part 537. Please note that the timing for submitting the reports is set forth in S537.5(b), and that your 1988 pre-model year report is due in December 1987, while your 1988 mid-model year report is due in July 1988.; 7. 49 CFR Part 542, *Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered b the Theft Prevention Standard*; Your sample Part 542 submission would satisfy the requirements of tha Part.; Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information o our regulatory requirements.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3551OpenMr. Robert P. McEvoy, President, Automotive Research and Certification Inc., 5 Orrantia Circle, Danvers, MA 01923; Mr. Robert P. McEvoy President Automotive Research and Certification Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers MA 01923; Dear Mr. McEnvoy: This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1981, appealing ou denial of your request to import five different German specification 1982 BMW passenger cars under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). This provision allows vehicles not meeting the Federal safety and bumper standards to be imported for test purposes for a limited time without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; You have asked us to reconsider our original decision or alternativel to allow the importation of two of the five vehicles. You have also agreed to perform all safety compliance work within 30 days of receipt of the five test vehicles, allowing you to carry out your test programs for developing complying emissions and bumper systems.; Upon review of your petition, the agency is agreeable to allowing yo to import a total of five vehicles under the provision of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), without insisting upon immediate compliance with the bumper requirements, provided that you will agree in writing that the vehicles will be brought into compliance with then existing bumper requirements if they are sold to third parties. This will allow you a maximum of 120 days to bring the vehicles into compliance with safety requirements.; The bumper standard is primarily a property damage standard, rathe than a safety standard, and the Administrator has the authority to waive it completely for vehicles imported into the United States. Although this authority has not been exercised or implemented in regulations, the temporary waiver which may be provided you is consistent with the intent of Congress, and allows both you and the agency to accomplish their goals. As a practical matter, the bumper standard may be amended in the near future to prescribe a more cost-effective level of performance and in that event your task of conforming the vehicles might be less difficult, we would not insist on conformance with the bumper standard in effect when the BMW's were manufactured.; I hope that this proposed solution is satisfactory to you. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4344OpenMr. Rudy van Kreuningen, Kraco Enterprises, Inc., 505 E. Euclid Ave., Compton, CA 90224; Mr. Rudy van Kreuningen Kraco Enterprises Inc. 505 E. Euclid Ave. Compton CA 90224; Dear Mr. van Kreuningen: This responds to your letters asking about the effect of Federal law o regulations on or aftermarket steel 'shelf' which you have designed for installation in the area above the windshield where the sun visors are located. The shelf would be used to hold small items such as maps or glasses and woud(sic) be provided with visors on its underside to replace the vehicle's original visors. I apologize for our delay in replying.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agenc to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It also authorizes us to require the recall and remedy of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment which contains a safety defect.; The sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 201., *Occupant protection in interior impact*, which requires that the Visor be 'constructed of or cover with energy-absorbing material' and that the visor's mounting must 'present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form.' The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your shelf were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor attached to it would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard, and the shelf would have to meet the mounting requirements. I am enclosing a copy of the standard for your review.; Although you propose to sell your shelf in the aftermarket, no as a item of original equipment, the standard can nonetheless affect persons who install the shelf. The Act provides that a person who manufactures, distributes, sells or repairs motor vehicles cannot 'render inoperative' a regulated device such as a sun visor or its mounting. If a repair shop were to remove a vehicle's sun visor and replace it with your shelf, the shop would be in violation of the Act unless your shelf complied with the standard. The sole exception to this rule is the individual owner, who may install a shelf i his own vehicle without regard to the standard.; In addition to the requirements of the standard, our safety defec authority could have a bearing on your sale of the shelf. If the shelf would normally be installed so that its rear edge could be hit by an occupant's head in a crash, it would seem likely to cause serious injury. It is thus possible that the shelf would be determined to contain a safety defect subject to recall. I urge you to examine the possibility of such injury before you make further plans to market the shelf.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4117OpenMr. E. Brooks Harper, General Manager, Backstop, Inc., 240 Pegasus Avenue, Northvale, NJ 07647; Mr. E. Brooks Harper General Manager Backstop Inc. 240 Pegasus Avenue Northvale NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Harper: This responds to your letter asking whether installation of your touc sensitive reverse braking system called 'Backstop' on an air brake vehicle would conflict with any Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. According to your letter, Backstop is plumbed into the vehicle air brake system and wired to the back up light circuit. The system is activated only when reverse gear is engaged and works by instantly applying the vehicle brakes when the rear bumper is touched while reversing. Shifting to neutral or a forward gear returns the system to normal braking.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and is limited to the standards and regulations administered by NHTSA. You may wish to contact the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to the installation of Backstop.; NHTSA does not have any regulations covering a touch sensitive revers braking system such as Backstop. However, since installation of Backstop requires plumbing into the vehicle's air brake system and wiring into the vehicle's backup light circuit, it is possible that it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, and No. 108, *Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment*. For example, your letter states that a delay of four milliseconds is introduced to the air brake system response by the insertion of the double check valve in the control line. While this delay is very small, it could conceivably affect a vehicle's compliance with the timing requirements of sections S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 121 if the vehicle otherwise was at the edge of compliance. We suggest that you carefully consider whether installation of Backstop in the variety of current vehicles and vehicle configurations would affect compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; If your device is added to a 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 the safety standards affected by the alteration. The specific certification requirements for alterers are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of Backstop would have no certification responsibilities, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Should a safety- related defect be discovered in your device, whethe by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 *et* *seq*. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5370OpenMr. James Schaub Midas Muffler Shop 180 Gause Blvd. Slidell, LA 70458; Mr. James Schaub Midas Muffler Shop 180 Gause Blvd. Slidell LA 70458; "Dear Mr. Schaub: This responds to your letter asking us about Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles. While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors. With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows: (f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . . This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area. The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation. We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5375OpenMr. Len R. Thies C&C Creations 9103 East 67th Court Tulsa, OK 74133; Mr. Len R. Thies C&C Creations 9103 East 67th Court Tulsa OK 74133; "Dear Mr. Thies: This responds to your letter asking about Federa rules, particularly those for flammability resistance, applicable to your aftermarket product. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that your product is a sheet of clear vinyl that inhibits the air flow in a van, thus reducing the amount of air to be heated or cooled. You further state that your product does not impair visibility and that it is easily detached and removed by the vehicle owner. This response is based on our understanding of the facts presented in your letter. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In response to your question, you are required to certify that your device complies with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), based on our understanding of your letter. Standard No. 205 applies to new, completed vehicles as well as to glazing sold in the aftermarket. The standard establishes performance requirements for various types of glazing (called 'items') and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference 'ANSI Z26,' the American National Standards Institute's 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways.' It appears that your device may be considered an 'interior partition,' which is considered under ANSI Z26 to be item 6 glazing. In addition, if your product were manufactured for a new vehicle, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, in addition to Standard No. 205. However, Standards No. 111 and No. 302 apply only to new vehicles, and not to items of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. Thus, they do not apply to your product. I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' Your vinyl sheet could render inoperative the rearward visibility requirements set forth in Standard No. 111, or the light transmittance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, your product could have elements of design that could render inoperative a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, the FMVSS for flammability resistance for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. While it appears unlikely that persons in the aforementioned categories would be installing your product, if they were to install it, they must not compromise the rearward visibility or flammability resistance provided by the motor vehicle. The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your products were placed in vehicles by the vehicle owners, they would not need to meet any FMVSSs. Nevertheless, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to tamper with or degrade the safety of their vehicles. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0250OpenMr. Lowell A. Kintigh, Vice President, Engineering Staff, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. Lowell A. Kintigh Vice President Engineering Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Kintigh: On August 13, 1970, you petitioned, on behalf of General Motor Corporation, for reconsideration of the amendment of 49 CFR 571.3, published on July 14, 1970 (35 F.R. 11242), which established a definition of 'fixed collision barrier'. The views presented in your petition have been carefully considered. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.; You argued that the phrase 'absorb no significant portion of th vehicle's kinetic energy' was subjective, and therefore not in accord with the statutory requirement that standards be stated in objective terms. This argument is without merit. It appears to be based on the misconception that the purpose of the definition is to describe, or prescribe standards for, a manufacturer's test barrier, as evidenced by your statement that it 'gives manufacturer no guidelines for determining whether or not he has built a barrier which complies with the definition.' The Bureau does not intend that manufacturers should build barriers to 'comply with the definition.' As stated in the notice,; >>>'this is not intended to be a description of an actual test barrier It is a device used in various standards to establish required quantitative performance levels of a vehicle in a crash situation, and means simply that the vehicle must meet the requirement no matter how small an amount of energy is absorbed by the barrier.'; <<>>there is no known method of measuring the amount of energy absorbe by a barrier. Therefore, there is no way that the manufacturer could even attempt to determine whether or not his barrier complied with the definition, and, more importantly, whether or not his vehicle when tested complied with the performance requirements of the standards.'<<<; The energy absorption of a barrier is a direct function of the movemen of the barrier during the impact. To be sure, there are other properties, such as its effective mass and elasticity, that also are factors in energy absorption. But it is clear that as the barrier movement approaches zero, the energy absorption also approaches zero, and the barrier movement can be measured, as you indicated by your recommendation that a specified amount of movement be allowed. In all cases where the vehicle has a tangible margin of safety performance over the required minimum, therefore, a manufacturer will have no difficulty in determining that his vehicle complies.; If our standards 'allowed' barrier movement, it would be far mor difficult to establish conclusively that a given vehicle did *not* meet the standard, since it would always be open to the manufacturer to argue that the Bureau's barrier did not move as far, and consequently did not absorb as much energy, as the standard allowed. To the extent that there may be a small degree of uncertainty as to the variance in the vehicle test performance caused by the variance of a barrier from zero absorption, that uncertainty must rest with the manufacturer, who is free to design into his vehicles whatever margin of performance he desires.; This matter was thoroughly considered by the Bureau, and the opinion of knowledgeable members of the public were sought and carefully evaluated. For these reasons, your petition for reconsideration must be denied.; We appreciate your cooperation in the field of motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Director |
|
ID: aiam2492OpenMr. Robert I. Fleming, President, Fleming Metal Fabricators, 2810 South Tanager Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90040; Mr. Robert I. Fleming President Fleming Metal Fabricators 2810 South Tanager Avenue Los Angeles CA 90040; Dear Mr. Fleming: This is in response to your December 3, 1976, letter concerning th relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, and the fuel tanks that you manufacture for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.; Standard No. 301- 75 applies to whole vehicles rather than to fue tanks. Therefore, the responsibility under Federal law for compliance with the standard lies with the vehicle manufacturer. He must exercise due care in certifying that the vehicle will, if tested by the NHTSA as specified in S6 and S7 of the standard, meet the fuel spillage requirements set out in S5. What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.; The vehicle manufacturer who installs a fuel tank manufactured by yo may, in order to meet his duty to exercise due care, rely on assurances from you concerning the tank's performance characteristics, to the extent that such reliance is reasonable. Your assurances, in turn, need not necessarily be based on actual crash testing of vehicles equipped with your fuel tanks under the exact conditions prescribed in the standard.; You should both note, of course, that the ability of a vehicle t conform to the standard depends not only on the performance capabilities of the fuel tank itself, but also on other factors including the manner and location in which it is mounted. The fact that your fuel tanks conform with Federal Highway Administration requirements (49 CFR SS393.65 and 393.67), therefore, does not by itself imply that vehicles equipped with such tanks are capable of passing the crash test requirements of Standard No. 301-75.; Similarly, the fact that your company's manufacturing procedures an its mounting and installation instructions conform to established industry practices is not sufficient evidence of due care, unless it is reasonable to conclude from it that the vehicles will conform.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3466OpenKenneth R. Brownstein, Counsel, Paccar, Inc., P.O. Box 1518, Bellevue, WA 98009; Kenneth R. Brownstein Counsel Paccar Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue WA 98009; Dear Mr. Brownstein: This responds to your letter of September 16, 1981, in which yo requested our views on whether Paccar may use its name on the certification label of vehicles manufactured by its Mexican affiliate.; This agency's regulations provide that each vehicle's certificatio label must contain 'the full corporate or individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle.' See 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1). The only relevant exception to that requirement is set forth in section 567.4(g)(1)(i), which states that if 'a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used.' Thus, the answer to your question depends upon whether Paccar 'controls' Kenworth Mexicana, the Mexican affiliate.; Your letter states that Paccar effectively owns a 49 percent interes in Kenworth Mexicana, the maximum permitted under Mexican law. Based on your telephone conversations with Roger Fairchild of this office, we understand that the vehicles to be produced in Mexico are of Paccar design, with Paccar control over all matters relating to compliance with safety standards. In fact, any design changes in the vehicle must apparently be approved by Paccar under your agreement with the Mexican company.; In these circumstances, we conclude that Paccar may use its corporat name on the Mexican vehicles' certification labels notwithstanding the less than majority equity interest in the Mexican company. The 'controlling corporation' exception to the general requirement that the vehicle assembler's name must appear on the certification label was enacted in recognition of the fact that 'particularly in some foreign countries, assembly of a vehicle may be performed by a subsidiary corporation controlled by a parent that is the generally known 'nameplate company.'' The agency determined that in such a situation, 'no important purpose is served by requiring the name of a lesser-known subsidiary corporation on the label.' See 34 FR 11360, July 9, 1969. Further, the agency has previously stated in one of its interpretations that the 'purpose of the manufacturer's designation in the certification regulations is to identify the company that has primary technical responsibility for conformity of the design and quality control of the assembly.' Particularly with respect to the design aspects, Paccar meets this test.; If you have further questions in this area, please feel free to contac us.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3467OpenKenneth R. Brownstein, Counsel, Paccar, Inc., P.O. Box 1518, Bellevue, WA 98009; Kenneth R. Brownstein Counsel Paccar Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue WA 98009; Dear Mr. Brownstein: This responds to your letter of September 16, 1981, in which yo requested our views on whether Paccar may use its name on the certification label of vehicles manufactured by its Mexican affiliate.; This agency's regulations provide that each vehicle's certificatio label must contain 'the full corporate or individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle.' See 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1). The only relevant exception to that requirement is set forth in section 567.4(g)(1)(i), which states that if 'a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used.' Thus, the answer to your question depends upon whether Paccar 'controls' Kenworth Mexicana, the Mexican affiliate.; Your letter states that Paccar effectively owns a 49 percent interes in Kenworth Mexicana, the maximum permitted under Mexican law. Based on your telephone conversations with Roger Fairchild of this office, we understand that the vehicles to be produced in Mexico are of Paccar design, with Paccar control over all matters relating to compliance with safety standards. In fact, any design changes in the vehicle must apparently be approved by Paccar under your agreement with the Mexican company.; In these circumstances, we conclude that Paccar may use its corporat name on the Mexican vehicles' certification labels notwithstanding the less than majority equity interest in the Mexican company. The 'controlling corporation' exception to the general requirement that the vehicle assembler's name must appear on the certification label was enacted in recognition of the fact that 'particularly in some foreign countries, assembly of a vehicle may be performed by a subsidiary corporation controlled by a parent that is the generally known 'nameplate company.'' The agency determined that in such a situation, 'no important purpose is served by requiring the name of a lesser-known subsidiary corporation on the label.' See 34 FR 11360, July 9, 1969. Further, the agency has previously stated in one of its interpretations that the 'purpose of the manufacturer's designation in the certification regulations is to identify the company that has primary technical responsibility for conformity of the design and quality control of the assembly.' Particularly with respect to the design aspects, Paccar meets this test.; If you have further questions in this area, please feel free to contac us.; 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.