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: aiam4805OpenSatoshi Nishibori, Vice President Industry-Government Affairs Nissan Research and Development Suite 902 750 17th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006; Satoshi Nishibori Vice President Industry-Government Affairs Nissan Research and Development Suite 902 750 17th St. N.W. Washington D.C. 20006; "Dear Mr. Nishibori: This responds to your letter seeking to confir your understanding of the scope and application of the 'captive import' definition set forth at 49 CFR 533.4(b)(2), and used in specifying light truck CAFE standards. NHTSA's regulations define a 'captive import' as a light truck which is 'not domestically manufactured but which is imported in the 1980 model year or thereafter by a manufacturer whose principal place of business is in the United States.' The agency adopted this definition beginning with the 1980 model year in order to prevent the standards from encouraging the increased importation of these vehicles and exportation of domestic jobs. See 43 FR ll996, March 23, l978. Your letter explains that you do not believe that the light trucks manufactured in the U.S. by Nissan's U.S. manufacturing subsidiary (NMM, which is jointly-owned by the parent Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (NML) in Japan and its wholly-owned U.S. importation and distribution subsidiary (NMC)), should be classified as captive imports. Your letter also states that light trucks imported by NMC should not be classified as captive imports. As explained below, I have concluded that neither the light trucks imported by your U.S. subsidiary, nor trucks manufactured by your U.S. manufacturing operation should be considered 'captive imports.' Section 501(8) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Act) defines the term 'manufacturer' as meaning 'any person engaged in the business of manufacturing automobiles. . . .' The term 'manufacture' is then defined in section 50l(9) as meaning to 'produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States, or to import.' Under these definitions, which are also used in Part 533, NMC is a manufacturer of light trucks imported for the parent company. Since NMC's principal place of business is in the U.S., one might initially conclude that all of Nissan's imported light trucks should be classified as captive imports. However, that is not a necessary conclusion since there may be more than one manufacturer of these vehicles. NHTSA has concluded in the past that a second person may be regarded as a manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured by another person if that second person has a sufficient role in the manufacturing process that it can be deemed the 'sponsor' of the vehicle. See, for example, the enclosed February 19, 1987 interpretation to a confidential addressee. For Nissan's imported light trucks, the act of importation is the key manufacturing activity under the statute. While NMC does the actual importing, NML is responsible for the creation and production of the vehicles imported to the U.S. It designs models specifically for the U.S. market, and created NMC for the purpose of importing and marketing these vehicles. NML can be seen as 'sponsoring' the importation of Nissan light trucks. Moreover, applying basic principles of the law of agency, NML, as sponsor, may be considered the principal. It is therefore our opinion that NML and NMC are both importers of the Nissan vehicles being brought into the U.S., and hence both are manufacturers under the statute. This situation is obviously distinguished from circumstances where the importer is not connected with the foreign manufacturer, e.g., so called grey market importers. NHTSA believes it is appropriate, in determining whether the vehicles are 'captive imports,' to look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the production, importation and marketing of the vehicles. In this case, NML controls all aspects of the Nissan light trucks imported into the U.S. Further, NML exercises complete control over NMC, and created NMC for the purpose of importing and marketing NML's products in the U.S. Indeed, NMC exists primarily to serve NML as a conduit into the U.S. market. I note that this relationship is clearly distinguished from the circumstances of the typical captive import. In lieu of producing certain vehicles in this country, a domestic manufacturer imports and markets in this country vehicles (captive imports) supplied by a foreign manufacturer with which it has a special relationship. In such a case, the domestic manufacturer is not under control of the foreign company. Moreover, the domestic manufacturer does not serve primarily as a conduit to the U.S. market for the imported vehicles. Since NML has its principal place of business in Japan, and exercises complete control over NMC, I conclude that vehicles manufactured by NML and imported into the U.S. by NMC are not captive imports. Moreover, since almost all foreign manufacturers utilize U.S. subsidiaries to import vehicles into the U.S., any other conclusion would have the effect of making virtually all imports 'captive imports,' a result which would clearly be inconsistent with the agency's intent in establishing the captive import category. I also agree with the statement in your letter that light trucks manufactured in the U.S. by NMM are not captive imports. While we understand that these vehicles are not 'domestically manufactured' as that term is defined in the statute, neither are they imported. The term 'import' is defined in section 502(l0) of the Act as meaning 'to import into the customs territory of the United States.' Since these vehicles are not imported, it is impossible for them to be considered captive imports. Your letter also enclosed a copy of a letter you sent to EPA, requesting that agency's interpretation of portions of EPA's fuel economy calculation regulations at 40 CFR Part 600. You sought clarification from EPA on the apparent inconsistency between EPA's regulations, which provide separate treatment for 'domestically produced' and 'not domestically produced' light trucks, and NHTSA's classification regulations, which distinguish only between 'captive imports' and 'others.' You requested this agency's comments on the issues raised in the letter to EPA. I am not in a position to comment on EPA's regulations, or on that agency's interpretation of its regulations. I will confirm, however, that NHTSA intended for different procedures to be applied to the determination of CAFE for light trucks than those for passenger cars. The primary distinction is that under the statute, passenger cars are divided into 'domestically manufactured' and 'not domestically manufactured' fleets. The statute contains no comparable distinction for light trucks. However, under NHTSA's regulations, light trucks are divided into captive imports and 'others,' which encompasses all light trucks which are not captive imports. This issue is discussed in some detail in the final rule establishing the captive import definition. See, 43 FR 11995, 11998-9, March 23, 1978. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5039OpenMr. Charles Henry, Jr. 537 Rock Springs Road Atlanta, Georgia 30324; Mr. Charles Henry Jr. 537 Rock Springs Road Atlanta Georgia 30324; "Dear Mr. Henry: This responds to your letter that requeste information about how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. Since your device is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment,' it would be subject to our jurisdiction as explained below. In your letter, you stated that when installed in a motor vehicle, your device would automatically shut down the 'lighting circuits of an automobile or vehicle' within a prescribed time period after the motor is turned off. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the lights controlled by the device are the headlights and tail lights. By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to regulate 'motor vehicles' and 'motor vehicle equipment.' Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines 'motor vehicle equipment,' in part, as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system part, or component or as any accessory or addition to the motor vehicle... As an 'addition' to the motor vehicle that automatically shuts off the vehicle's lights, after the motor is shut down, we would consider your device as 'motor vehicle equipment.' There are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for devices that automatically shut off lights on motor vehicles, after the motor is shut down. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a device would not have to certify that the device complies with any safety standards before offering it for sale to the public. From your letter, it appears that your device is initially intended for installation after first sale of the motor vehicle to the public, but may later be sold for installation before such sale. The addition of this device to a vehicle before the vehicle's first sale could affect the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently attach a label to each of their new vehicles stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.4. The certification regulation also sets forth requirements for persons who modify previously certified vehicles by adding, modifying, or substituting readily attachable components. Such persons are considered 'alterers' of the previously certified vehicles. Alterers are required to leave the original manufacturer's label in place and affix an additional label identifying the alterer and stating that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7. As you may be aware, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays, and Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles. While your letter gave no details about how this device would be installed in a vehicle, it seems highly unlikely that a device would be regarded as 'readily attachable' if it is designed to automatically shut off lights on a motor vehicle, when the motor is shut down. Thus, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 101 and 108, with this device installed. After the first sale of the vehicle to the public, certain persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)). 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' To avoid a 'rendering inoperative' violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, commercial after market installers of your device should examine any installation instructions that you may have for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a 'rendering inoperative' of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements. The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your device, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either: (1) repair the product so that the defect is removed, or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect. Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that state laws may apply to the use of your device. For further information on state laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2206OpenHoward A. Heffron, Esq., 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC, 20006; Howard A. Heffron Esq. 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Heffron: This is in reply to your letter of February 13, 1976, asking for confirmation of your understanding that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not apply to lighting equipment intended as replacement equipment on motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972.; You are correct in your interpretation. The effective date of Standar No. 108 in its current form is January 1, 1972. Therefore, the term 'any vehicle to which this standard applies' contained in S4.7.1 means a motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, and school bus signal lamps intended as replacements for similar lamps on pre-1972 buses are not required to conform to Standard No. 108. This also means, of course, that the manufacturer has no obligation to certify conformance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As motor vehicle equipment, however, its manufacturer would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in the event of the determination of a safety related defect.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0391OpenMr. K. Krueger, Technical Development, Liaison Engineer, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. K. Krueger Technical Development Liaison Engineer Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Krueger: This is in response to your petition for rulemaking of June 28, 1971 You requested that Standard No. 208 be amended to allow the seat belt warning switch to be installed in the buckle instead of the retractor.; The action on petitions for reconsideration issued on July 2, 1971, i effect granted your request, allowing the warning shut-off to be keyed to webbing withdrawal or buckle closure.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5469OpenMr. Roger Matoba 5665 White Mountain Ct. Martinez, CA 94553; Mr. Roger Matoba 5665 White Mountain Ct. Martinez CA 94553; Dear Mr. Matoba: This responds to your letter, addressed to Patrici Breslin, asking us to review our safety belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans. You stated that manufacturers interpret Safety Standard No. 208 to require the installation of shoulder belts for these seating positions. You expressed concern that this requirement creates a safety hazard for vehicles with a side aisle to rear seating locations. According to your letter, passenger seats next to the side aisle have shoulder belts that cross the aisle. You believe that these shoulder belts would block the exit of more rearward passengers in an emergency, and suggested that we eliminate this requirement. Your understanding of Standard No. 208's requirements is not entirely correct. It is correct that the standard requires (S4.2.4) lap/shoulder safety belts in all forward-facing 'rear outboard designated seating positions' in new passenger vans with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. However, under S4.2.4.1, the term 'rear outboard designated seating position' excludes, for purposes of this requirement, any seating positions that are 'adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehicle, which walkway is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions.' Therefore, the seating positions that you are concerned about are not required to have shoulder safety belts. The standard instead only requires manufacturers to provide lap safety belts for these seating positions. NHTSA decided not to require shoulder safety belts at these seating positions because the agency recognized that the belts might obstruct an aisle designed to give access to rear seating positions. Manufacturers are, however, permitted to provide lap/shoulder belts if they choose to do so. With respect to your concerns about the safety of shoulder safety belts which cross an aisle, I note that such belts do not in fact prevent rearward passengers from exiting the vehicle. Such passengers may exit the vehicle by going under or over the belt. They may also move the belt aside by spooling out the webbing, or even unlatch the belt. Indeed, any difficulty that rearward occupants face in exiting the vehicle is much smaller than that faced by rear seat occupants in a two-door car or the occupants of middle seats. In considering the safety of such belts, it is also important to consider the extra protection offered by the shoulder belt to the occupant who wears it. We believe the vehicle manufacturer is in the best position to balance, for its vehicles, the benefits associated with this extra protection against any difficulties related to occupants entering and exiting the vehicle. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5193OpenMr. Michael Love Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno, NV 89520-3911; Mr. Michael Love Manager Compliance Porsche Cars North America Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno NV 89520-3911; "Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your letter of March 31, 1993. You letter refers to vehicle designs which have locations which meet the definition of 'designated seating position,' as defined at 49 CFR 571.3(b), at certain times but not at others. 'For example, a seat with a folding seat back may be a seating position with the seat back in the up position and not with the seat back folded over the seat base. Another example of this could be if a platform or other device has several positions, one of which covers the seat so as to remove the necessary room to meet the designated seating position criteria.' You asked for verification of the following two statements which you believe are a correct interpretation of such a situation: When the seat meets the criteria, then seat belts must be provided according to the requirements of 571.208. In addition, those belts, since required by 571.208, must also meet the requirements of 571.209 and 571.210. When the seat does not meet the criteria, then seat belts are no longer required by 571.208. Any seat belts provided in this situation must no longer meet requirements of 571.208, 209 or 210. As explained below, NHTSA disagrees with your suggested interpretation. The term 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. In both of the examples you provide, the position would be a 'plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female.' Therefore, these positions would be considered 'designated seating positions' at all times. Even though some adjustment may be necessary before the seat can be used, the seat is available at any time if needed. Your statements also raise the question of whether a vehicle must comply with all requirements related to a specific 'designated seating position' when that position is not usable for seating. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. NHTSA would only test a 'designated seating position' for compliance with applicable safety standards when testing can be done according with the test conditions and procedures specified in the standard. While the examples you provide are not specific enough to explain how testing would be done in those instances, if a 'designated seating position' was completely blocked under certain circumstances, NHTSA would not test under those circumstances. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2656OpenMr. Charles E. Klatt, Senior Director, Codes, Legalities, Testing & Training, Holiday Rambler Corporation, 65528 St. Road 19, Wakarusa, IN 46573; Mr. Charles E. Klatt Senior Director Codes Legalities Testing & Training Holiday Rambler Corporation 65528 St. Road 19 Wakarusa IN 46573; Dear Mr. Klatt: This responds to your June 1, 1977, letter asking several question about the applicability of Federal safety standards to travel and motor homes.; You first ask whether bed sheets and decorative bedspreads shipped wit a motor home are required to meet Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. The items required to meet the standard are listed in S4.1 of the standard. That list does not include sheets or bedspreads. Therefore, they are not required to comply with the standard.; In a related question pertaining to Standard No. 302, you ask whethe 'mattress cover' as that term is used in the standard refers to the permanent mattress ticking or to a removable mattress cover. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the standard applies to both the permanent ticking and the removable cover. Therefore, both must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302.; In a question pertaining to Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, yo ask whether it is permissible to label a bench seat 'not for occupancy while vehicle is in motion' on one label or whether a seat must be labeled at each seating position. Standard No. 207 requires only one label for a bench seat in a motor home. You should note that Standard No. 207 does not apply to travel trailers.; You ask whether the NHTSA has jurisdiction over safety-related defect in motor homes not covered by safety standards. The agency has general defect jurisdiction granted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) for all safety-related motor vehicle defects. The NHTSA's defect jurisdiction also extends to the nonoperational safety of a vehicle.; In a final question you ask whether the agency has jurisdiction ove 'any motor vehicle' which is defined in the Act as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power...' Therefore, the NHTSA has jurisdiction over travel trailers that is identical to its jurisdiction over any other motor vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3944OpenMr. R. David Hawkins, Laboratory Technician, Failure Analysis Associates, 10899 Kinghurst, Suite 245, Houston, TX 77099; Mr. R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician Failure Analysis Associates 10899 Kinghurst Suite 245 Houston TX 77099; Dear Mr. Hawkins: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*. You asked whether buses are excluded from the requirements of section S4.2, section S4.3, and/or the static testing procedures of section S5. You also asked whether there are any other standards which provide criteria for the testing of seating systems on buses. The answers to your questions are provided below.; Section S2 of Standard No. 207 provides that the standard applies t buses (among other vehicle types). Section S4.2, *General performance requirements*, provides that '(w)hen tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat other than a side- facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand' specified forces. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.2. However, the driver's seat on a bus is not excluded from the requirements of that section. The testing procedures of section S5 are only relevant to seats which are subject to the general performance requirements of section S4.2.; Similarly, section S4.3, *Restraining device for hinged or foldin seats or seat backs*, provides that '(e)xcept for a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants, a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall' meet specified requirements. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.3. Assuming that a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back were provided for the driver, it would not be excluded from the requirements of that section unless it had a back that was adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.; With respect to your last question, Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, specifies criteria for the testing of school bus passenger seats. That standard is not applicable to buses other than school buses. The agency does not have any other standards which provide criteria for testing seating systems of buses.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1979OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, RVIA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20036; Mr. David J. Humphreys RVIA 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1975, in which yo request an interpretation which excludes roof vent covers in recreational vehicles from the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has receive an identical request from Richards, WAtson, Dreyfuss & Gershon on behalf of Hehr International, Inc. In response to that request, we have determined that roof vent covers should be included within the scope of Standard No. 205, but also concur that roof vent covers manufactured by the injection molding process are not susceptible to testing under the procedures found in USAS Z26.1. Consequently, we intend to issue in the near future proposed rulemaking which would establish surrogate testing procedures for this type of roof vent cover. Until such time as the new procedure is adopted, it is the intention of the NHTSA to take no action against manufacturers who do not certify that their injection molded roof vent covers meet the requirements of Standard No. 205 which incorporate the requirements of USAS Z26.1.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4628OpenMr. Robert W. Kahle 4111 Blood Road Metamora, MI 48455; Mr. Robert W. Kahle 4111 Blood Road Metamora MI 48455; "Dear Mr. Kahle: This responds to your letters to Mr. Jettner of ou Office of Vehicle Safety Standards asking about the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of an 'aftermarket' head restraint for light trucks. Your letters have been referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in responding. You ask whether you need this agency's approval of your product. The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraints sold as an item of 'aftermarket' equipment for pickup trucks. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. 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 sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. A commercial business that installs your head restraint would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act 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 ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. You ask for a copy of an 'order' requiring head restraints on new pick-up trucks in 1991. Please note that NHTSA has thus far only proposed to require head restraints in new light trucks and vans (10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating), and has proposed a September 1, 1991 effective date for the requirement, if the proposed rule is adopted. I have enclosed a copy of the proposal for your information. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding shortly. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.