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: aiam5008OpenMr. Gerald A. Guertin 6800 Kitty Hawk Drive Pensacola, FL 32506; Mr. Gerald A. Guertin 6800 Kitty Hawk Drive Pensacola FL 32506; "Dear Mr. Guertin: Your letter of March 30, 1992 to former Secretar Skinner was referred to this agency for reply. You expressed concern that you had not received a response to an earlier letter, addressed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the use of vans to transport school children. I regret that you did not receive a response to your previous letter. You indicated that you are a school teacher in Florida and asked us to verify your understanding of why you cannot use nine- to 15-passenger vans to transport school children. You stated that, at the present time, seven-person rifle teams, eight-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, and the like are prohibited from being transported in vans and must instead use 'gas- guzzling, 37-passenger school buses.' Since these clubs must raise their own gas money, you stated that they could get 'more trips for the buck' if they could use vans. You indicated that you were permitted to use vans prior to a crash about seven years ago in which a cheerleader was killed. You understand that van roof standards were apparently not what they should be and that NHTSA then 'came forward with the need for `acceptability of crash-worthy tests' for vans,' placing the cost of developing and performing such tests on manufacturers. You suggested that van manufacturers opted out of the school van business because they were reluctant to fund the new tests. Your understanding is not quite correct, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less, vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a 'school bus' is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children, however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Florida law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards. I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2237OpenMr. Fred A. McNiel, 611 Bouldin Avenue, Austin, TX, 78704; Mr. Fred A. McNiel 611 Bouldin Avenue Austin TX 78704; Dear Mr. McNiel: On February 12, 1976, this agency denied your petition to amend S4.5. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to read:; >>>'The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon applicatio of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle.'<<<; You have now re- petitioned us on February 16, 1976, to amend S4.5.4 t read:; >>>'The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon applicatio of the service brakes. This action may be supplemented by other beneficial means which will improve the performance of the stoplamps without impairing the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle.'<<<; This petition is unnecessary, because as you have now worded you suggested amendment it essentially reflects the present requirements of the standard. We do not view S4.5.4 as prohibiting a means of stoplamp activation supplemental to activation by application of the service brakes.; Any supplemental lighting device, however, is subject to the genera prohibition of S4.1.3 against installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. For example, a positioning device that activates the stoplamps whenever the accelerator pedal is released would impair the effectiveness of the stoplamps by providing an ambiguous signal, as release of the accelerator does not always signify that the vehicle operator intends to brake.; You also questioned whether NHTSA desires to see improvements in moto vehicle stoplamp systems. Docket No. 74-5 represented a tenative (sic) effort to provide better systems on an optional basis, but on the basis of comments to the docket and our research contracts, we are re-evaluating the entire subject. Your denial must also be considered in this context, and at the present time radical changes in rear lighting are simply premature.; The remainder of your letter was also of interest. Dr. Haddon remarke that performance standards afford the private sector optimum flexibility in designing to meet the Federal standards. His comment reflected a statutory mandate which this agency continues to adhere to in its rulemaking actions. However, as I wrote you on February 12, any performance standard is design restrictive to some extent, with the restrictions ideally only as narrow as reasonably necessary to achieve the desired safety performance. In some areas (*e.g.* the occupant protection provisions for vehicle interiors in impacts, Standard No. 201) a great deal of design freedom is afforded, while others (*e.g.* the headlighting requirements of Standard No. 108) may be quite restrictive because safety-related factors such as availability of replacements, uniformity of color and location, and detection of function are more important than design freedom.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4249OpenMs. Barbara J. Kelleher, CRS Research, P.O. Box 313, Buffalo, NY 14226; Ms. Barbara J. Kelleher CRS Research P.O. Box 313 Buffalo NY 14226; Dear Ms. Kelleher: This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, seeking a interpretation of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that a client planned to produce two child restraint models whose harness and crotch straps would be integral parts of a movable shield. You stated your belief that these straps were an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213. Accordingly, you asked that this agency permit these straps to be attached during the Configuration II testing required by section S6.1.2.1.2. You stated that a similar request for harness attachment was 'granted' to the Collier-Keyworth Company.; First, I would like to make clear that this agency does not gran requests by manufacturers to avoid following the compliance test procedures specified in Standard No. 213. We interpret the requirements of Standard No. 213 as they apply to particular factual situations. When those same factual situations arise again, our interpretation of the requirements is the same, regardless of which manufacturer is involved.; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a July 3, 1985, lette this agency sent to Mr. Frederick Locker, addressing whether a proposed Collier-Keyworth child restraint could attach its belts during the Configuration II testing. We concluded that belts that are attached to and not easily removed from a movable shield are integral parts of the shield, within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3(c). This conclusion means that those belts may be attached during the Configuration II testing.; Judging by the pictures enclosed with your letter, it appears that eac of the two child restraint models designed by your client also has belts that are attached to and not easily removed from the movable shield. If our belief is correct, those belts could be attached during the Configuration II testing.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3076OpenMr. Leonard Cain, Department of Education, State of Mississippi, Jackson, MS 39205; Mr. Leonard Cain Department of Education State of Mississippi Jackson MS 39205; Dear Mr. Cain: This responds to your May 7, 1979, letter asking whether any Federa law (statutes, standards, regulations or guidelines) prohibits a school district in the State of Mississippi from converting the gasoline fuel system in school buses which it owns to a butane or propane powered system. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system and older school bus chassis not equipped with such a system. As explained below, none of the laws we administer would prohibit converting any school bus, regardless of when it was manufactured.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended i 1974 ('the Act'), 15 U.S.C. *et seq.*, the agency has issued Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity* (49 CFR 571.301-75). This standard specifies performance requirements for the fuel system of certain new motor vehicles. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) schoolbuses with a (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.; New vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold and delivere to a purchaser for purposes other than resale) manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 may be converted to propane or butane systems. Upon the conversion of the vehicles to types of fuel systems not covered by the standard, the vehicles would cease to be subject to the standard.; Similarly, used vehicles manufactured in accordance with the standar as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of the standard may be converted. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) limits tampering with the fuel systems of vehicles manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75. It does not apply at all to vehicles manufactured before that standard's effective date. The section, in essence, prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment of elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. There is no prohibition against vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(A) provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 ...<<<; There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection wit FMVSS 301-75 if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a gasoline-powered school bus to a propane or butane-powered school bus (a vehicle type not covered by the standard), the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to FMVSS 301-75 since that standard does not apply to propane or butane-powered school buses. FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F, and propane and butane reach their boiling points at a lower temperature.; This means that a school district in your state would not be prohibite from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacture, to propane or butane-powered school buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a motor vehicle repair business or some other person or entity listed in Section 108(a)(2)(A), that person or entity would not be prohibited from performing the work.; Please note, however, that if a propane or butane fuel system i installed in a new vehicle, the installer would be responsible for any safety defects in the manner in which the system is installed. Sections 151 *et seq.* of the Act provide that if vehicles are found to contain a safety defect, notification of the defect must be given and the defect must be remedied. Defects in the systems themselves would be the responsibility of the manufacturer of the systems, regardless of whether they are installed in new or used vehicles.; I hope that you will find this response helpful and you have not bee inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4619OpenMr. David S. Hughes 3150 W. 4299 So. West Valley City, UT 84119; Mr. David S. Hughes 3150 W. 4299 So. West Valley City UT 84119; "Dear Mr. Hughes: This is in reply to your letter with respect to lighting fixture you wish to install on your trailer. Your diagram shows it to be a rectangular unit that displays 'Thanks Driver' or 'Thank You' as a courtesy message. The unit may be mounted on the rear of the trailer, 'between the safety bar under the floor of the trailer', or 'directly behind the mud flaps.' In either location, you state that it 'would be out of the way of any regulated light.' You are also interested in the possibility of selling the lamp. I regret the delay in responding. This agency has no authority to 'approve' or 'disapprove' individual items of lighting equipment. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of your device to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting administered by this agency, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the standard was issued. With respect to your installation of the lamp on your own truck, this agency has no regulations that would govern such an action. The acceptability of this device would be determined under the laws of the individual States in which a vehicle so equipped is registered and operated. We are unable to advise you on State law and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for guidance, at 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203. We assume that your interest in selling the lamp is as an aftermarket accessory to truck owners. If the lamp is installed by the owner of the truck, once again there are no Federal standards that apply to it, only the laws of the individual States. However, if the lamp is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, under Federal law its installation must not render inoperative, either in whole or in part, any of the lighting equipment required by the Federal lighting standard. To aid these parties in avoiding a violation of that prohibition, you should ensure the wiring does not interfere with theeffectiveness of the wiring of lamps installed in accordance with Federal requirements. Without a photo, we are unsure of the relationship of the location of the courtesy device in either of the two locations you have suggested to the location of other rear lights required by Federal law, such as identification lamps, clearance lamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, etc., though you have stated that it is 'out of the way' of them. However, your statement indicates that you recognize the importance of ensuring that the signal from a supplementary lamp not dilute the effectiveness of Federally-required lighting equipment, and we appreciate your concern. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /"; |
|
ID: aiam3426OpenMr. J. E. Bingham, British Standards Institution, Test House, Maylands Avenue, Hemel Hempstead, Herts HP2 4SQ, England; Mr. J. E. Bingham British Standards Institution Test House Maylands Avenue Hemel Hempstead Herts HP2 4SQ England; Dear Mr. Bingham: This responds to your letter of March 12, 1981, concerning the strengt requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, for a dual buckle (i.e., a two buckle unit) anchored in a vehicle by one common anchorage attachment.; As explained below, I disagree with your judgment that the standar does not deal adequately with the dual buckle design. Your proposal to test the dual buckle with 5,000 pounds of force is also incorrect, the correct force is 6,000 pounds.; Section 3 of the standard defines 'hardware' as 'a metal or rigi plastic part of a seat belt assembly.' That section further defines 'attachment hardware' as 'any or all hardware designed for securing the webbing of a seat belt assembly to a motor vehicle.' As described in your letter and shown in its attached photograph, the dual buckle has a common metal anchorage attachment. Since the purpose of that metal part is to secure the webbing to the vehicle, it is considered attachment hardware.; Section 4.3 (c)(2) specifies that 'attachment hardware designed t receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 6,000 pounds or 2.720 kilograms without fracture. . . .' Since the common anchorage attachment is designed to receive the force created by the ends of two seat belt assemblies, it must meet the requirements of S4.3(c)(2).; You are correct that the attachment bolt is required to withstand force of at least 9,000 pounds or 4,080 kilograms under paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5321OpenEric T. Stewart, Engineering Manager Mid Bus 3555 St. Johns Road P.O. Box 1985 Lima, OH 45802-1985; Eric T. Stewart Engineering Manager Mid Bus 3555 St. Johns Road P.O. Box 1985 Lima OH 45802-1985; Dear Mr. Stewart: This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994 regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5.3(c) for retroreflective tape. You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam0123OpenMr. R. M. Dahlke, Plant Manager, Rolite, Inc., Grantsburg, WI 54840; Mr. R. M. Dahlke Plant Manager Rolite Inc. Grantsburg WI 54840; Dear Mr. Dahlke: Thank you for your letter of October 24, 1968, concerning glazin materials in your recreational vehicles.; FHWA Ruling 68-1, published in the *Federal Register* on March 26 1968, (33 FR 5020) specified that campers must meet the requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. Copies of FHWA Ruling 68-1 and Standard No. 205 are enclosed.; We do not have any provision for exempting certain windows from th requirements of Standard No. 205 because of their foldaway position during transport. It is true, also, that your camper could be transported in the erected condition. Therefore, all glazing materials in the camper must meet the requirements of Standard No. 205.; Travel trailers are not included in the application of Standard No 205, hence, do not have to meet the safety glazing requirements.; Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Standards o Crash-Injury Reduction, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam0089OpenMr. William Butterfield, Product Engineer, Lodal, Incorporated, Kingsford, MI 49802; Mr. William Butterfield Product Engineer Lodal Incorporated Kingsford MI 49802; Dear Mr. Butterfield: Thank you for your letter of June 17, 1968, to the National Highwa Safety Bureau, attention of Mr. Joseph R. O'Gorman, concerning the requirements for rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps on your EVO Refuse Packer.; Since no mounting height restrictions are specified for rea identification lamps in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, these lamps may be mounted on or below the cross member between the rear wheels. Shielding may be necessary to protect the lamps.; No clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp o identification lamps. Combination rear clearance and side marker lamps may be used providing the requirements for each are met.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4863OpenMr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237 Phoenix, AZ 80058; Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street #14-237 Phoenix AZ 80058; Dear Mr. Dembecki: This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991 asking for an 'evaluation' of your 'Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: 'complete' one and two bulb units 'for l984 and older vehicles', and one and two 'electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.' In your opinion, 'since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed.' We understand that your 'complete' unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the 'electronic module' intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer. Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. 108 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. 108 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard. With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. 108 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps. Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.