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: aiam4997OpenMr. Michael F. Hecker Micho Industries P.O. Box 1791 Goleta, CA 93116; Mr. Michael F. Hecker Micho Industries P.O. Box 1791 Goleta CA 93116; "Dear Mr. Hecker: This responds to your letter of April 2, 199 concerning possible interpretations of section S5.1.4(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, as it applies to the R-BARR Passenger Restraint System (R-BAR). (While your letter refers to section S5.1.2(c), you clarified in a telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff that your concerns relate to section S5.1.4(c).) The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that Micho Industries believes that: A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint. B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222. To support these statements you offer the following reasons: 1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure. 2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended. 3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.4(c)) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use. The issue of whether Standard No. 222 is applicable to a device such as the R-BAR has been addressed previously by this agency. Enclosed are copies of four letters concerning similar devices (Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll, November 3, 1988, and March 10, 1989, The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, January 8, 1990, and Mr. Scott K. Hiler, January 31, 1991). Those letters make it clear that if a device such as the R-BAR is installed in any new school bus, the school bus manufacturer must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards with the device installed. The letters also make it clear that such devices may not legally be installed in used school buses by commercial establishments such as repair businesses if the effect of such installation is to take the vehicle out of compliance with any safety standard. With respect to your assertion that the R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that prescribe objective requirements. Under the Act, manufacturers must certify that their products comply with the requirements of all applicable standards and not merely with some alleged 'intent' of a standard. Further, manufacturers may not certify products based on speculation that the agency would have established different requirements had it known of a particular design. With regard to your specific concerns about S5.1.4(c), that section states that when a seat back is subjected to a specified force, '(t)he seat shall not deflect by an amount such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 inches of any part of another passenger seat in its originally installed position.' In the enclosed letter to Mr. Hiler, the agency stated that 'once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback.' Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4.(c) Section S5.1.4(c)'s requirements are not limited to rigid components of a seat, and therefore the fact that the R-BAR is not a fixed position device is not relevant to the applicability of those requirements. With respect to your argument that the device will move upward and away in the event of a rear impact, Standard No. 222 sets forth a specific test procedure for the requirement specified in S5.1.4(c). Manufacturers are required to certify that a vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure. 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, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam2140OpenMr. L. A. MacEachern, Cal Light Company, 50 Oak Court, Walnut Creek, CA 94596; Mr. L. A. MacEachern Cal Light Company 50 Oak Court Walnut Creek CA 94596; Dear Mr. MacEachern: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1975, telling us of you wish to market a rectangular sealed beam headlamp unit for motorcycles. In your opinion this might be prohibited by 'federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the amended SAE J584b December 1971.'; Substitution of J584b would not be a solution to your problem since i does not specify a Type 2A sealed-beam headlamp unit as one of the approved options. There would have to be both a substitution of J584b and a provision in Standard No. 108 itself that either a Type 2 or Type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit may be used. I enclose a copy of a regulation that tells how you may submit a petition for rulemaking for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 108.; You also enclosed a letter from the California Highway Patrol statin that it was amending its regulations; >>>'to allow the use of motorcycle headlamps which comply with the typ 2 lower beam photometric requirements and the motorcycle upper beam requirements, though we are not sure what position NHTSA would take upon this interpretation'.<<<; Such action by the California Highway Patrol appears precluded b Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The effect of this section is to prohibit California from having a State lighting standard that differs in any way from Standard No. 108. Since the Federal lighting standard does not allow the California amendment, the State regulation appears invalid.; Notwithstanding California's 'approval' of your headlamp, your sale o this rectangular headlamp for motorcycles as either original equipment or as replacement equipment (but only for motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972) would appear to be a violation of Section 108(a) (1) (A) of the Act, unless and until Standard No. 108 is amended. There is a maximum penalty of $1,000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0487OpenMr. C. D. Snead, Vice President, Eastman Chemical Products, Inc., 500 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20024; Mr. C. D. Snead Vice President Eastman Chemical Products Inc. 500 12th Street S.W. Washington DC 20024; Dear Mr. Snead: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1971, concerning th status of your petition to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials', to allow the use of Uvex plastic sheet in motor vehicles. You request our comments regarding three matters which you list, and which are incorporated into our responses below.; You ask us to 'explain that Uvex Sheet Plastic is and has been unde active consideration for vehicle glazing approval for some time and an early decision is anticipated.' A notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205 (Docket No. 71-1) was published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 326). This notice would allow the use in motor vehicles of plastic materials, not presently allowed, that meet certain specified requirements. This notice is based in part upon a petition submitted by Eastman Chemical. The requirements do not refer to Uvex or any other material by name. The Administration takes no position on whether Uvex material would meet the proposed requirements. A final decision based on this notice is anticipated in the near future.; The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 9, 1971, does, as yo indicate, propose other amendments to Standard No. 205. Some of these proposals have engendered substantial interest from industry and have consequently affected the amount of Agency work involved in the rulemaking action.; Finally, you ask if State highway standards preventing the use of Uve will continue to be effective if Uvex is allowed to be used under the Federal standards. Under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), a State motor vehicle safety standard applicable to a particular aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance must be identical to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to that same aspect of performance. Consequently, a State vehicle standard prohibiting all use of Uvex would be pre-empted to the extent that amendment of Standard No. 205 permits its use.; I hope this clarifies the situation for you. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2510OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P. O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P. O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your December 20, 1976, request for confirmation tha the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends to test the leg protection zone in Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, in such a manner as to ensure that the entire knee form will contact with the seat back or restraining barrier and will not extend beyond them.; The knee form contact area measurement required by Standard No. 222 wa intended to measure the distribution of forces over an adequate area of the knee in an impact situation. The measurement is meaningful, therefore, only when the contact area is tested in a manner that provides opportunity for the knee form to contact with the seat back or restraining barrier to the fullest extent possible. In accordance with the intent of the standard the agency will not test the contact area in any configuration where the hemispherical surface of the knee form testing device extends beyond the test surface.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2843OpenMr. Toko Iinuma, 560 Sylvan Avenue, P.O. Box 1606, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Toko Iinuma 560 Sylvan Avenue P.O. Box 1606 Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This responds to your May 25, 1978, question concerning the strengt requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, as they would be applicable to the anchorage on a single diagonal passive belt system. You ask how many pounds of force should be applied to such a belt system for the anchorage strength test.; The anchorage for a single diagonal passive seat belt should be teste with a 3,000 pound force for purposes of the Standard 210 requirements, the same force required for the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt. Most vehicles with single diagonal passive belt will have knee bolsters or some other method to restrain the legs in a crash, so the anchorage will not experience as much stress as would be placed on a lap belt without knee bolsters. Therefore, 3,000 pound test should ensure that the anchorage for a diagonal passive belt can withstand typical crash forces.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3751OpenMr. Philip H. Wong, Deltana Enterprises, Inc., 12871 S.W. 117 Street, Miami, FL 33186; Mr. Philip H. Wong Deltana Enterprises Inc. 12871 S.W. 117 Street Miami FL 33186; Dear Mr. Wong: This responds to your letter to this office asking for information o regulations applicable to the importation of new tires, retreaded tires, and used tires casings from Japan into this country. It is not clear from your letter whether you are interested in importing passenger car tires or tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you get the information of concern to you, I will discuss the three situations you asked about for both passenger car tires and tires for use on other motor vehicles.; Generally speaking, all tiers which are subject to a Federal moto vehicle safety standard must have the symbol 'DOT' molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The importation of any tire without the DOT certification symbol on the sidewall would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), and the importer would be subject to a civil penalty of $1000 for each tire he imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall.; *New passenger car tires*. Section S4.3.1 of Safety Standard No. 10 (49 CFR S571.109) (copy enclosed) requires that all new passenger car tires have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; *New tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars* Section S6.5(a) of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119) (copy enclosed) requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; *Retreaded passenger car tires*. Section S6.1 of Standard No. 117 (4 CFR S571.117) (copy enclosed) requires that all retreaded passenger car tires have the symbol DOT molded into the sidewall by the retreader. Retreaded passenger car tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; *Retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars* No Federal safety standard is applicable to these tires. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the retreader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574 (copy enclosed), if they are to be legally sold in the United States. It would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(E) to sell tires without an identification number.; *Used passenger car tires*. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) reads in part a follows: 'No person shall...import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title, unless it is in conformity with such standard...' The effect of this language is to require that passenger car tires manufactured on or after the date Standard No. 109 took effect (January 1, 1968) be certified as complying with that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. To be legally imported into the United States, used passenger car tires must either have a DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the original manufacturer or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before January 1, 1968.; *Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars*. Th same reasoning applied above in the case of used passenger car tires applies to these tires as well. Standard No. 119 took effect on March 1, 1975, so used tires to be imported into the United States must either have a DOT symbol on the sidewall or proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975.; Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars whic have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported.; You also asked for any other information which your supplier might nee to export tires to the United States. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Yang Ru-tang, which sets forth the requirements which must be satisfied in order for a foreign manufacturer to export tires to this country.; If you need any further information on this subject, please feel fre to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4094OpenMr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation, 30400 Mound Road, Warren, MI 48090- 9015; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090- 9015; Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Stee concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.; You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of th requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of '(s)eat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly' at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.; You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existin language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard No. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.; You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since a owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle 'B' pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency's April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 210's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.; Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additiona anchorages is not minimal. You said that 'the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.'; While we believe that you have raised a number of important issue concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency has consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as 'a strap, webbing, or similar device' used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 209, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides 'pelvic and upper torso restraint.' Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.; The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts an automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used 'in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by' S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by S4 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that 'an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be used...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option.'; Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, w believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1296OpenThomas N. O'Leary, Esq.,Messrs. Pain & Julian,1940 East Camelback,Phoenix, Arizona 85016; Thomas N. O'Leary Esq. Messrs. Pain & Julian 1940 East Camelback Phoenix Arizona 85016; Dear Mr. O'Leary:#In your letter of October 8, 1973, to the Departmen of Transportation you ask whether it is true that DOT requires trailer braking system to have stainless steel conduits rather than copper ones.#Neither the Federal motor vehicle safety standards nor the regulations of the Bureau if Motor Carrier Safety contain such a requirement, and we are unaware of any Federal regulation of this nature.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3301OpenMr. George Beggs, Mechanical Plastics Corp., Castleton Street, Pleasantville, NY 10570; Mr. George Beggs Mechanical Plastics Corp. Castleton Street Pleasantville NY 10570; Dear Mr. Beggs: This responds to your April 28, 1980, letter asking several question about your responsibility as a manufacturer if you modify a Volkswagen by the addition of a recreational device (Hatchpack). The modification that you propose appears to be substantial in that it might involve a significant alteration of the vehicle rear and roof structures.; Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to give yo some general background information. First, the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. It is the responsibility of a manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable requirements of all of our safety standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. For example, when 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 all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the Hatchpack device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment.; From the general discussion in your letter, you appear to wan information on safety standards for which you would be responsible. Further, you state that Volkswagen has indicated its concern about the compliance of its vehicle with the crashworthiness safety standards if it is modified as you propose. As we stated above, as an equipment manufacturer, you would not be responsible for the compliance of any safety standard since we have no equipment standards applicable to the device that you manufacture. However, the installer of the device on a new vehicle would be responsible for ensuring that the vehicle continues to comply with all affected safety standards. The installer will probably need your help in making its certification. Therefore, we suggest that you closely confer with Volkswagen to learn which safety standards they feel might be violated by the addition of your equipment. With this information, you can conduct testing or undertake engineering analyses of your device as mounted on the vehicle to see whether Volkswagen's fears have merit. If you can assure yourself that the vehicle as modified will continue to comply with the safety standards, then you can pass this information along to the installer of the equipment who could then certify the vehicle in compliance.; The following are the responses to your specific questions. 1. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed and sold on new automobiles by licensed new car dealers?; As I stated above, the addition of this equipment to a new vehicl means that the installer of the equipment must attach an alterer's label to the vehicle indicating that it continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Therefore, the installer would be responsible for any safety standard that might be affected by the installation.; 2. Under what sections of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed by an independent accessory installer onto a new automobile which is then sold as a new vehicle by a licensed new car dealer?; The answer to this question is the same as the answer to questio number 1.; 3. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed by an automobile manufacturer as a factory option for new vehicles which are then to be sold by licensed new car dealers?; If the automobile manufacturer installs the device, that manufacture simply certifies the vehicle in compliance with all safety standards as it must do with any vehicle it produces.; 4. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall i it is to be installed by an automobile owner/user?; There are no safety standards or other regulations applicable t modifications made to vehicles by their owners if the modifications are entirely made by the vehicles' owners. If a business such as a garage were to make the modification, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. However, since the vehicle would be used, such a business would not be required to attach a certification label.; 5. In each of the cases described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, an No. 4, who are the parties responsible for certifying to the N.H.T.S.A. that the product is in compliance with the required standards?; No person is required to certify to the NHTSA that a vehicle or produc complies with the requirements. In certain instances, a certification label must be attached to the vehicle. We have indicated in our response to each of the preceding questions when labels must be attached and by whom.; 6. In each of the cases described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, an No. 4, who are the liable parties in the event of injury or death as a result if (sic) improper installation?; If the improper installation results in a noncompliance with a safet standard or with a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would hold the installer primarily responsible. If, however, we were to discover that the equipment itself were the cause of the defect or noncompliance, the equipment manufacturer would be responsible to the agency. With respect to private liability that might result from a defect or noncompliance, you should consult with your own attorneys for an answer to this question.; 7. Based on the general information supplied with this letter would th installation of this unit by other than a motor vehicle manufacturer require an 'alterers' label or certification?; As we indicated earlier, the answer to this question is yes if th installation is made on a new motor vehicle that has been previously certified by its manufacturer.; 8. Under which, if any, of the cases described in questions No. 1, No 2, No. 3, and No. 4 would there be an N.H.T.S.A. requirement for a fuel system integrity crash test?; The NHTSA does not require that any manufacturer perform a crash tes if it can prove that the vehicle would comply with the requirements by some other means, such as design analysis. It is impossible for us to tell from your drawings whether your device would likely impact the fuel system. Volkswagen can probably be helpful in providing information in this area. If some impact on the fuel system is likely, testing or analysis would be required in each of the first three instances raised in your questions. No testing is ever required for the modification of used vehicles by their owners.; 9. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from Mechanica Plastics Corp. for the Hatchpack product?; The NHTSA requires no advance forms of certification or assurances fro manufacturers that their products comply with safety standards. Our enforcement scheme is one of self- certification where the agency might subsequently purchase and test a vehicle for compliance with the standards.; 10. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from th installing party as described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4?; The answer to this question is the same as the answer to questio number 9.; We hope that this clarifies your responsibilities and duties wit respect to the device that you propose to manufacture. Again, we strongly encourage you to consult with Volkswagen engineers who can be the most helpful in telling you of the standards that you are likely to impact with your device. If you have any further questions, please contact Roger Tilton of my staff at 202-426-9511.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0604OpenMr. K. Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Factory Representative Office, Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ, 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. Factory Representative Office Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1972, regarding th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to certain vehicle components which you enumerate.; You state that you do not consider the 'steering column tube cover' an the 'steering column cover' to be of 'any other materials . . . designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash' in S4.1, and that it is your understanding that they are therefore excluded from the application of the standard. If these components are not in fact designed to be energy absorbing then your conclusion is correct.; You also ask whether the center console or air conditioner grilles ar required to comply with the standard. The answer again depends upon whether they are within the above quoted language of S4.1. I point out that the NHTSA is presently reviewing this particular requirement, and it may be modified in rulemaking which we expect to publish in the near future.; Finally, you ask for the specific meaning of the term 'trim panels' a used in S4.1. The phrase 'all trim panels, including door, front, rear, and side panels,' is intended to refer to various rigid or semirigid interior coverings, such as door, scuff, and other covering panels, which appear on the front, sides, and rear of the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.