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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam4374OpenMajor Harry A. Crytzer, Bureau of Patrol, Pennsylvania State Police, 1800 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110; Major Harry A. Crytzer Bureau of Patrol Pennsylvania State Police 1800 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg PA 17110; Dear Mr. Crytzer: This responds to your letter to our office and a telephone call betwee Trooper Monko of your department and Deirdre Hom of my staff, concerning how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations affect a certain modification of a school bus. I apologize for the delay in our response.; You explained in your letter and enclosures that the vehicle i question is a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds. The vehicle is being *leased* by the Governor Mifflin school district from a local dealer, Wolfington Body Company, who bought the vehicle from the school bus manufacturer, Collins Industries. Your letter said that Collins delivered the vehicle to Wolfington with an extra side door 'in place.' The side door was provided for purposes of installing a wheelchair lift. You stated that Wolfington could have installed a wheelchair lift, if it had wished to do so, however, in the case at hand, Wolfington sealed the door and installed rear seats provided by Collins in the bus.; You first ask whether the school bus dealer (Wolfington) is prohibite by Federal law from sealing the side door and installing the rear seats. The answer is no. However, Federal law does impose limitations on the modifications that may be made. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) states:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai 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 . . . .<<<; Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits Wolfington from either removing disconnecting or degrading the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with applicable Federal safety standards. Thus, the school bus dealer cannot seal the door if the door had been installed on the vehicle to meet the requirements for emergency exits found in Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. In the case you describe, the school bus was provided with a rear emergency door which presumably satisfies Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. If the school bus is able to meet the requirements of the standard notwithstanding the sealed side door, then there is no 'rendering inoperative' of the vehicle's compliance with the school bus emergency exit requirements.; Nevertheless, Wolfington must ensure that no other safety design o item of equipment installed pursuant to applicable Federal safety standards was rendered inoperative by its modifications. For instance, the performance of the fuel system must be maintained to the level required by Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. Similarly, Wolfington must ensure that the seats previously certified to Standard No. 222, *School Bus Seating and Crash protection*, maintained their levels of performance.; Trooper Monko requested information on the Federal requirement applying to Collins and Wolfington, if Collins had delivered the school bus with the door sealed to Wolfington, the purchaser, and Wolfington had installed the lift and removed the rearmost seats. Wolfington is subject to the 'render inoperative' provisions of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act in this situation, just as it is in the situation discussed earlier. Thus, Wolfington must ensure that its modifications do not negatively affect the compliance of safety equipment and designs with Federal safety standards. Notably, the fuel system and seats on the school bus must continue to meet the applicable safety standards.; We note that a different set of our regulations would apply i Wolfington had obtained a new school bus from Collins to *resell* it to a school district. These regulations apply to the alteration of *new* vehicles, and impose certification responsibilities on dealers modifying new vehicles. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are interested in those regulations.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1526OpenMr. J. W. Kennebeck, Manager, Emissions, Safety & Development, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. J. W. Kennebeck Manager Emissions Safety & Development Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to your May 22, 1974, question whether Volkswagen' passive belt system may be equipped with a 'comfort clip,' and whether an optional Type I lap belt may be offered in conjunction with the passive system. Your passive system consists of an upper torso restraint and, in place of a lap belt, knee padding under the dashboard.; A vehicle which satisfies Standard No. 208, *Occupant cras protection*, may be equipped, at the option of the manufacturer, with additional safety belts which conform to Standard No. 209, *Seat belt assemblies*. Additional belts, like any required belt, must conform to the S7.2 requirements for latch mechanisms.; >>>S7.2*Latch mechanism*. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenge car shall have a latch mechanism --; (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both th stowed and operational positions,; (b) That releases both the upper torso restraint and the lap bel simultaneously, if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant, and; (c) That releases at a single point by a push-button action.<<< This requirement assures that the occupant crash protection provide under Standard No. 208 is not diminished by a complicated and slow series of belt latch mechanisms which could otherwise be introduced into the vehicle.; Volkswagens' passive upper torso restraint and a separate active la belt do not violate S7.2(b) in combination. Simultaneous release is required only 'if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant.' As described, Volkswagen's upper torso restraint does not require unlatching for release of the occupant.; With regard to our regulation of 'comfort clips', we approved the us of a clip in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors, to relieve belt tension in limited circumstances. A copy of that letter is enclosed. In that case, the lap belt provided could be independently and firmly adjusted to limit occupant movement, providing protection in the event of lateral and rollover crashes. Until we have further details on the functioning of the Volkswagen clips, however, which we urge you to submit, we are unable to determine whether it would conform to the adjustment requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4724OpenMr. Larry F. Wort, Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield, Illinois 62764; Mr. Larry F. Wort Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield Illinois 62764; Dear Mr. Wort: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, l990, t Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to Federal requirements for front side marker lamps on trucks. The Ford C-CT Series Cab is equipped with a reflex reflector (apparently mounted on the door, to judge by the Exhibit A that you enclosed), but does not have a separate front side marker lamp. Ford states that it uses 'the roof mounted corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements', and that they satisfy photometry and all other Federal requirements. You have asked whether 'the top of the cab clearance light may be used to fulfill the requirements for front side market lights. . . on cab over engine vehicles.' The answer is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not prohibit combining the front side marker lamp with any other lamp, and prohibits a front clearance lamp only from being optically combined with a front identification lamp (section S5.4, formerly S4.4). Although, under Table II of Standard No. 108, Location of Required Equipment, a front side marker reflector may not be mounted higher than 60 inches from the road surface, there is no corresponding limitation on the mounting height of front side marker lamps, which would preclude it from being located on top of the cab. The marker lamp must be located 'as far to the front as practicable', and the agency generally defers to the manufacturer's discretion in determining whether a location is practicable, unless it is clearly erroneous. Judging by the location of the combination clearance-side marker lamp shown in Exhibit A that you enclosed, we have no reason to question Ford's decision to locate the lamp there. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4231OpenMr. Francois Louis, Governmental Affairs Director, Renault USA, 1111 19th Street, NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Francois Louis Governmental Affairs Director Renault USA 1111 19th Street NW Suite 1000 Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Louis: Thank you for your letter of October 17, 1986, to Dr. Richar Strombotne of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. Your letter was referred to this office for reply. You have asked a number of questions concerning how the requirements of the standard apply to the automatic restraint system Renault intends to use in one of its vehicles. The answers to your questions are discussed below.; You explained that Renault plans to use, at both front outboard seatin positions, an automatic restraint system consisting of a motorized, detachable, two-point automatic belt and knee bolster. You stated that the automatic restraint system meets all the injury criteria of the standard when tested in the 30 mile per hour frontal barrier test of S5.1 of the standard. You also explained that Renault has decided to install voluntarily a manual lap belt with your automatic restraint system. You further stated that the addition of the manual lap belt does not affect the performance of the automatic restraint system, since your testing shows that the automatic restraint system can meet the injury criteria in a 30 mile per hour frontal barrier crash test both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.; As I understand your first question, you are, in essence, asking th agency to confirm that under S4.5.3 of the standard an automatic belt system with a single diagonal torso belt can be used in meeting the front crash protection requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) and can also be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2). As provided in S4.5.3 of the standard, an automatic safety belt system can be 'used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option.' Thus, you are correct that an automatic safety belt can be substituted for the Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt otherwise required by S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. This means that a Renault vehicle equipped with an automatic safety belt would not be subjected to the lateral crash test of S5.2 or the dynamic rollover test of S5.3.; Your second and final question concerned how our safety standards, i particular Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, would apply to a manual lap belt voluntarily installed by manufacturers with an automatic safety belt system. In a March 1, 1979 letter to Ford Motor Company, NHTSA stated that 'active lap belts and their associated anchorages are not required to comply with Federal safety standards if installed voluntarily by a manufacturer in addition to a single, diagonal passive belt.' In responding to Ford, NHTSA also noted that in past interpretations the agency has stated that 'systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the passive belt in this case) to comply with Federal safety systems.' In Renault's case, the addition of the manual lap belt does not appear to affect the automatic safety belt, since you stated that Renault can meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1033OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., Suite 406, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. David J. Humphreys Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. Suite 406 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of January 31, 1973, requesting severa interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials', as it applies to motor homes and campers.; We find the interpretations as to the use of item 3 glazing containe in your letter to be correct. Your interpretation of 'levels not requisite for driving visibility' as meaning that other windows are available and more suited for driving visibility is reasonable, and acceptable for purposes of Standard No. 205.; We also find your interpretations on the use of items 4, 5, 8, and glazing materials to be correct. We do not agree, however, with your suggestion of allowing items 5 and 9 glazing to be used in camper windows adjacent to the truck cab rear window without regard to driving visibility. We agree it is unlikely with respect to most vehicles that such windows will be requisite for driving visibility, and will accept a good-faith, reasonable judgment decision on the question by a camper manufacturer. Consequently we do not believe that the remaining 'degree of uncertainty' will result in compliance problems for camper manufacturers.; Your conclusions regarding the application of items 6 and 7 glazing ar correct. We do not agree, however, that it is necessary or desirable to use such materials in any forward-facing windows, including those adjacent to the rear window of the truck cab. We believe the possibility of impact into these windows precludes the safe use in them of these glazing items, and item 13 glazing as well.; Your conclusions regarding the application of item 12 and item 1 glazing are correct. We appreciate your pointing out the lack of continuity in subparagraph designations for items 6, 7, 8, and 9. This was unintentional on our part, and your conclusion that the added subparagraphs should be read as following immediately those existing, regardless of letter designation, is correct. Finally, you are correct in your conclusion that the amendments to Standard No. 205 should be seen as overriding the headings for the various glazing items in the ANS Z26 standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4661OpenMr. Wolfred Freeman Freeman & Company P.O. Box 5062 San Marcos, CA 92069; Mr. Wolfred Freeman Freeman & Company P.O. Box 5062 San Marcos CA 92069; "Dear Mr. Freeman: This is in reply to your letter to June 22, l989, t the Administrator-Designate, General Curry, in which you 'petition...for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles.' You have designed 'a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks on the road.' We are treating your letter as a request for an interpretation of whether your device would be permissible for sale and use as an item of aftermarket equipment under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency. By aftermarket, we mean sale of the device for installation on cars and trucks in use, as contrasted with sales by dealers for installation on new cars. The principal regulation of this agency pertaining to motor vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. The only requirements it establishes for the aftermarket is for equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment specified by the standard (for example, headlamps and stop lamps). As your device is not a required item of motor vehicle lighting equipment, there is no Federal standard that applies to it. However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act has a direct relationship to the acceptability of aftermarket equipment. The Act prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard. Under Standard No. l08, this equipment includes stop lamps, turn signal lamps, hazard warning signals, turn signals, backup lamps, taillamps, and the license plate lamp. On large trucks, it also includes identification lamps and clearance lamps. If the potential effect of an auxiliary lighting device is to create confusion as to the intended message of any lighting device required by Standard No. l08, we regard the auxiliary light as having rendered the required lamp partially inoperative within the prohibition of the Act. Thus, the question is whether your device has the potential to create confusion so that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would be a violation of the Act. We do not conclude that the device has this potential. In your device, a steady-burning amber light would signal that the accelerator had been released (and that neither the accelerator nor brake pedal were being applied). Amber is the recognized signal for caution. This signal will extinguish when either the accelerator (green signal) or brake pedal (red signal) is applied. Furthermore, it is steady burning whereas other rear lamps where amber is an optional color (turn signals and hazard warning signals) flash in operation. Therefore, it does not appear that your device would create confusion with required items of lighting equipment. You must also consider whether the device would be acceptable under the laws of any State where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. However, we believe that in several Western States, there has been specific legislation that would permit your device. We appreciate your interest in enhancing vehicle safety through improvement in rear lighting systems. We believe that improvements, such as the center highmounted stop lamp, should be introduced as standardized, mandatory lighting equipment on vehicles, rather than as optional aftermarket devices. Contrary to your understanding, our studies of a system similar to yours showed no discernible improvement in reaction time or accident avoidance over current systems. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1199OpenMr. Charles J. Calvin, Managing Director, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Charles J. Calvin Managing Director Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Calvin: This is in reply to your letter of July 5, 1973, requesting a unifor location for trailer certifications labels required by both the Hazardous Materials regulations (49 CFR S 178.340-10) and NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). You request that location be specified as the 'forward half of the left side of the trailer.'; NHTSA Certification regulations, as you note, presently provide tha the certification label for trailers must be placed on the 'forward half of the left side of the vehicle' (49 CFR S 567.4(d)). This requirement does not distinguish between the frame and the tank shell, and the reference to 'vehicle' in the language of the provision is considered inclusion of both. The Certification regulations therefore appear to permit the location of the label that you request.; I note, however, the drawings in your letter, those titled 'Acceptabl Locations of Certification Labels' and 'Suggested Locations for Certification Labels', picture as an appropriate label location the front of the vehicle.; This location is not permitted by the NHTSA Certification regulations which clearly call for the label to be affixed to the vehicle 'left side'. While it is not clear whether you intended to request that the label be permitted to be affixed to the vehicle front, we do not find sufficient justification in your letter to depart from the existing requirements in this regard.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1463OpenMr. Ronald N. Granning, Vice President, Granning Suspensions, Inc., 3040 Wyoming, Dearborn, MI 48120; Mr. Ronald N. Granning Vice President Granning Suspensions Inc. 3040 Wyoming Dearborn MI 48120; Dear Mr. Granning: This responds to your March 21, 1974, request for an explanation o your certification responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as a manufacturer of liftable and 'additional' axles which are installed on completed vehicles by an independent truck equipment dealer or, in some cases, by the vehicle manufacturer at the factory.; Your responsibilities under Standard 121, *Air brake systems*, ar largely the same as your responsibility for certification of the GAWR of an axle under 49 CFR Part 567, although somewhat more complicated. It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard 121 (49 CFR Part 567.4), and if the completed vehicle is altered, it is the responsibility of the vehicle alterer (49 CFR Part 567.7). The addition of an axle will change the GAWR-GVWR and the brake performance of the altered vehicle and will require recertification by the dealer who undertakes alteration.; A dealer is normally not equipped to recertify an altered vehicle except on the basis of certification information supplied to him by the manufacturer of the component that is being added. A component manufacturer like yourself might issue a performance guaranty which relies on the information that is supplied to him by the manufacturer of the basic parts (e.g. brakes, axles in your case) and which is conditioned on the observance of certain limits on installation. For instance, the reservoir volume requirement (S5.1.2.1) might be exceeded if the liftable axle manufacturer did not qualify his information by stating that a certain tank volume must be provided to serve the air chambers on his axle system. Another qualification could refer to brake actuation and release time as complying only if it did not reduce the brake actuation and release timing of the vehicle as a whole. The effect of your axle on each of the requirements would have to be determined.; We do not require certification of the axle by you as its manufacturer. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5420OpenDean Lakhani, President Gem Manufacturing Corp. 7752 W. 60th St. Summit, IL 60501; Dean Lakhani President Gem Manufacturing Corp. 7752 W. 60th St. Summit IL 60501; "Dear Mr. Lakhani: This responds to your letter requesting ou 'unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with' an air bag. Your company is a manufacturer of bumper guards. Recently your customers have indicated that auto manufacturers have stated that installation of a bumper guard in front of a bumper will interfere with the air bag and could void the warranty. This letter will address the effect under Federal laws of the installation of a bumper guard, however, our agency cannot comment on the effect on a manufacturer's warranty. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles, therefore, if a bumper guard is installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with the bumper guard installed. After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. This provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing a bumper guard on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. Please note that this provision would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that this provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install a bumper guard on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. You should also note that a bumper guard would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' under Federal law. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. It is not possible for NHTSA to provide an 'unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with' an air bag. This is because the answer to the question would depend on the designs of the bumper guard, the air bag, and the vehicle as a whole. The discussion which follows illustrates possible problems, identified by our technical staff, which bumper guards could cause with respect to air bags. First, a bumper guard attached to the bumper could possibly induce unwarranted air bag deployments if the guard extended vertically below the car bumper. Such a bumper guard could snag on travel surface irregularities, sharp inclines, or sharp incline departure angles which might otherwise not engage the vehicle structure. The potential impulsive nature of bumper guard snag might cause air bag deployment to occur at conditions differing from the crash severity for which the original manufacturer designed the air bag. Second, if a bumper guard were attached to the vehicle structure, rather than the bumper, it too could possibly produce deployments that are not intended. Such a system might impose direct loading into the vehicle frame without the energy absorption of the bumper moderating the impulse experienced by the crash sensor system which is calibrated to measure crash severity. Third, if a bumper guard were added to the front bumper of a vehicle in such a manner as to change the load path through the bumper to the car structure behind the bumper, it is possible that the crash impulse arriving at the crash sensor location might be altered from that of the original bumper, causing air bag deployment to occur either above or below the original manufacturer's deployment threshold. We cannot provide an opinion of whether, or under what circumstances, your bumper guard might cause these or other problems. We suggest that you consult with vehicle manufacturers and air bag manufacturers concerning how, and whether, your bumper guard can be installed on air bag-equipped vehicles in a manner that does not create problems. 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: aiam0622OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 48202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 48202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: In your letter of February 23 you present a fact situation in which final stage manufacturer receives a completed vehicle, 'such as a Ford Econoline,' and is instructed by the ultimate purchaser to add seats and seatbelts, flashing lights, etc. to transform the vehicle into a small school bus. You ask:; ???'Must this vehicle be certified as a bus, even though it had bee certified previously by the chassis maker as a completed truck? How would a person so certify?<<<; Where a completed, certified vehicle is altered after manufacture, th issue is whether sufficient modifications have been made to the original vehicle that the one who modifies it must be considered a manufacturer in his own right. Considering the scope of modifications you describe, and the change of vehicle type from 'truck' to 'bus' (if its carrying capacity is over 10 persons), or to 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' (if it can carry 10 persons or less), this question would most likely be answered in the affirmative. In such a case the modifying manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable standards. He would have the responsibility of ensuring that his modifications did not affect the vehicle's original compliance with the standards, as well as full responsibility for any standards that become newly applicable because of the change of vehicle type.; 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.