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: aiam1247OpenMr. A. E. Davies, President, International Bicycle Corporation, P.O. Box 912, Goleta, CA 93017; Mr. A. E. Davies President International Bicycle Corporation P.O. Box 912 Goleta CA 93017; Dear Mr. Davies: This is in reply to your letter of August 21, 1973, to Dr. Gregor concerning your wish to import and sell an 'electric moped'.; Although you did not enclose a pamphlet on the Electra, we are familia with the conventionally powered mopeds. Two-wheeled powered vehicles are 'motorcycles' for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and must comply with standards applicable to that category. In addition to Standard No. 108, standards applicable to motorcycle controls (No. 122) and brake systems (No. 123) became (sic) effective January 1, 1974 and September 1, 1974, respectively. The standards are found in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.; The manufacturer of the vehicle, or the importer as a statutor manufacturer, certifies on the basis of his own tests or other engineering information that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal standards at the time of its manufacture. The regulation for this requirement is Part 567 of Title 49. It is a self-certification procedure, subject to penalties for noncompliance, and no 'approval' is obtained from this agency.; Part 555 of Title 49 sets forth the procedures for applying fo temporary exemption from any standard on one of four grounds. Of interest to you will be the exemption procedure for hardship and facilitation of development of low-emission vehicles.; I enclosed an information sheet telling you where you may obtain thes materials.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2892OpenMr. J. K. Novell, Alloy Trailers, Incorporated, P.O. Box 19208, Spokane, WA 99204; Mr. J. K. Novell Alloy Trailers Incorporated P.O. Box 19208 Spokane WA 99204; Dear Mr. Novell: This responds to your October 24, 1978, questions about the effect o the *PACCAR v. NHTSA* decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.; Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision Only the 'road testing' requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.; One question raised is whether the court invalidated these 'roa testing' requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on 'no lockup' and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation 'at the time [the standard] was put into effect' (573 F2d. at 640).; Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks 'no lockup performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.; A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have been antilock equipped, S 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that --; >>>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 ....<<<; The issue is whether the antilock was 'installed .... in complianc with an applicable .... standard.' Because the NHTSA concluded that the 'no lockup' and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of S 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.; I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the firs retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.; The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different i the case of a manufacturer or agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under S 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety- related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken.'Adequate repair' is defined in S 159(4) not to include 'any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment.' The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safety-related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.; A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain 'road testing' portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, 'no lockup', timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.; Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes a importation in violation of S 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.; You also asked whether the 12- foot-lane requirement of S5.3.2 fo trailers remains in effect. The answer to your question is yes. Because trailers are not required to stop within a specified distance, we concluded that there would be no difficulty in coming to a controlled stop within the 12-foot-lane without 'no lockup' performance, as long as the 90-psi application requirement was also considered invalidated by the Ninth Circuit. If you have information that indicates this not to be the case, we would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible as the basis for reconsideration of our interpretation.; You undoubtedly noted that our October 19th *Federal Register* notic of interpretation of the *PACCAR* decision stated that requirements such as reservoir capacity were not invalidated by the Ninth Circuit, despite their indirect relationship to the 'no lockup' requirement. As for rulemaking to make such a change, I have enclosed a copy of our recent proposal on trailer parking and emergency brake requirements. You will find a discussion of the reservoir issue on page 41058 and a request for information from manufacturers. I encourage you to submit available information to the NHTSA, at the address noted in the proposal.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3780OpenB.E. Diehl, Captain, Commander, A.S.E.D., Maryland State Police, 6601 Ritchie Highway, Glen Burnie, MD 21062; B.E. Diehl Captain Commander A.S.E.D. Maryland State Police 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie MD 21062; Dear Captain Diehl: This responds to your letter of November 11, 1983, asking thre questions about the use of sun screening devices on vehicle glazing materials. The answers to your questions are as follows:; 1. The interpretations of Standard No. 205, *Glazing materials*, state in this agency's letters to the State of Hawaii concerning the use of sun screening device on vehicle glazing materials will be uniformly applied by the agency from State-to-State. If you are aware of vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair shops that are in violation of those interpretations, please provide that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.; 2. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements for all glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Those performance requirements may vary depending on where in the vehicle the glazing is used. For example, only glazing materials used at levels requisite for driving visibility must comply with the luminous transmittance requirements.; 3. Standard No. 205 specifies abrasion resistance requirements fo glazing materials. Therefore, the use of solar screening materials, which do not meet the abrasion requirements of the standard, would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with the standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4045OpenThe Honorable Harold Rogers, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Harold Rogers U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Rogers: Thank you for your letter on your constituent's behalf to former Chie Counsel Frank Berndt asking several specific questions about our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to your constituent. If you or your constituent need further clarification about how our requirements apply in a specific situation, please let me know.; Your questions were as follows: >>>1. Can a vehicle designed, manufactured, and sold as a truck, eve be considered a 'school bus' unless remanufactured, modified, or converted by a manufacturer or a manufacturer's dealer or distributor and certified as a school bus?<<<; The answer to your question depends on whether you are asking about vehicle being considered a 'school bus' under State or Federal law. Under Federal law, which applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the answer is no. A vehicle is certified only once, when manufactured as a new vehicle. With the one exception discussed below, there is no provision in our statutes or regulations for recertification of a used vehicle which has been modified so that it falls into a different category of vehicles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued thereunder require manufacturers to classify their new motor vehicles and certify that their vehicles meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Those determinations are only made by the manufacturer at the time the vehicle is originally manufactured. Since both the physical attributes underlying the vehicle types and the applicable safety requirements differ from type to type, a vehicle can be classified only as a single type. Therefore, a new vehicle manufactured and sold as a 'truck' is certified as meeting our safety standards for trucks and cannot be certified also as a vehicle meeting safety standards for school buses.; Our regulations do not prohibit used trucks from being modified fo pupil transportation purposes. Since our certification requirements apply only to the manufacture or alteration of new motor vehicles, the person performing the modification does not recertify the vehicle as a 'school bus' unless the modification of the vehicle is so extensive as to constitute a manufacture of a new vehicle. For example, a used truck chassis lacking requisite systems required by our regulations might be combined with a new school bus body. The completed school bus would be considered newly manufactured, and would have to be certified as a 'school bus.'; Used trucks which have been modified to carry school children might b considered 'school buses' under State law. State definitions of school buses determine the applicability of school bus operational requirements to vehicles. If the modifications to a truck bring it within a State's definition of 'school bus,' then the vehicle would be considered a school bus under State law and would have to comply with State requirements for school buses in order to be properly used as a school bus in that State.; >>>2. Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply only t manufacturers, their dealers and distributors?<<<; The answer to your question is no, because our motor vehicle safet standards apply to anyone who manufactures, distributes or sells new motor vehicles. Federal law requires manufacturers of new school buses to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable school bus safety standards. In addition, distributors and sellers of new school buses must ensure that only complying school buses are sold. While new school buses are typically sold by their manufacturers or manufacturers' distributors and dealers, the responsibility to sell complying school buses rests with any person selling new school buses.; The Vehicle Safety Act applies also to persons who perfor manufacturing operations on previously certified *new* vehicles prior to the vehicles' first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. Such persons are considered 'alterers' under our regulations and are subject to requirements that they certify compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Alterers who significantly affect the configuration of a new motor vehicle previously certified to applicable safety standards must certify that the new vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration in effect on the date of manufacture of the original vehicle or on the date the alterations were completed. In addition, the Vehicle Safety Act applies to commercial businesses performing operations on *new and used* motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) states, in part:; >>>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 . . . .<<<; Thus, the requirements of our motor vehicle safety standards affec those aforementioned parties modifying or repairing new or used motor vehicles, by setting limits on the operations performed on those vehicles. Those persons are prohibited from either removing, disconnecting or degrading the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. There is no prohibition against an individual owner modifying his or her own vehicle.; >>>3. What is the difference between a tamperer and a modifier as the relate to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?<<<; Our regulations do not define the terms 'modifier' and 'tamperer. However, the terms are commonly used to describe persons who make changes to vehicles. The term 'modifier' is often used to describe persons making changes to new or used vehicles. As explained above, persons modifying a new motor vehicle prior to its first purchase are considered 'alterers' under our regulations and are subject to requirements that they recertify the vehicle. Commercial parties involved with modifying new or used vehicles are subject also to the 'render inoperative' prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A).; 'Tamperers' often refer to persons modifying or removing safety system or equipment on used vehicles. Commercial parties involved in tampering are subject to the 'render inoperative' prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A). Violations of Section 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation. Again, our regulations do not apply to individual owners modifying their own vehicles. Such modifications, however, would have to comply with State law.; >>>4. Who can make the certification that a vehicle meets applicabl Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?<<<; Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new motor vehicle certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. As suggested above, 'alterers' are considered to be vehicle manufacturers and therefore are also subject to certification requirements. Alterers certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to applicable safety standards affected by the alteration.; >>>5. Does the date of manufacture of a vehicle determine the specifi Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that the vehicle has to meet?<<<; In general, the answer to this question is yes. The date of manufactur is one factor determining applicability of our motor vehicle safety standards. Each motor vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of a safety standard is subject to requirements of that standard if, of course, the standard applies to that vehicle type. However, as explained above, 'alterers' affecting compliance with Federal safety standards by their alteration may choose the completion date of the alterations as the date by which to certify.; >>>6. Are passenger restraint systems required on school buses with manufacture date prior to April 1, 1977?<<<; In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safet standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Pursuant to that mandate, we issued Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, which requires school buses to provide a passenger restraint system through a concept called 'compartmentalization'. The standard became effective on April 1, 1977, and applies to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. School buses manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, are not subject to compartmentalization requirements.; >>>7. Are there any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicabl only to school buses prior to April 1, 1977?<<<; The answer is no. There are three safety standards that we issue exclusively for school buses, i.e., Standards No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength, and No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Those standards became effective April 1, 1977.; >>>8. Do school buses manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, have to mee FMVSS No. 217 and FMVSS No. 222?<<<; Standard No. 217 became effective September 1, 1973. School buse manufactured on or after that date and prior to April 1, 1977, had to meet Standard No. 217 *if* push- out windows or other emergency exits were provided. Pursuant to the 1974 Congressional mandate, NHTSA amended Standard No. 217 to require school buses manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, to contain additional emergency exits and set special requirements for those exits.; Standard No. 222 became effective on April 1, 1977. School buse manufactured prior to that date do not have to meet that standard.; Again, please contact my office if you or your constituent have an further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0006OpenMr. William A. Batten Eaton Corporation Truck Components Operations P.O. Box 4013 Kalamazoo, MI 49003; Mr. William A. Batten Eaton Corporation Truck Components Operations P.O. Box 4013 Kalamazoo MI 49003; Dear Mr. Batten: This responds to your letter and telephon conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. You asked about the standard's 'applicable mileage requirement or time domain' for a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. You informed Ms. Fujita that, stated differently, your question is whether NHTSA requires a used vehicle to continue to meet an FMVSS, and if the answer is yes, for what mileage or amount of time the vehicle must meet the standard. Generally speaking, the answer is no. NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires a vehicle to comply with applicable FMVSS's until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, you should be aware that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a vehicle (new or used) are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Thus, in the context of Standard No. l24, a person in the aforementioned categories is prohibited from rendering inoperative an accelerator control system that has been installed in compliance with that standard. In addition, if the in-use deterioration of the performance of a vehicle or one of its components creates a safety risk, it could constitute a safety-related defect. Pursuant to sections l5l-l54 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of such safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge. Thus, if the accelerator control systems on your vehicles deteriorate such that they no longer would comply with Standard No l24 and create an unsafe situation, that could be the basis for a defect determination, even though the vehicles met all applicable safety standards when they were new. I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements, you can write to them at the following address: Office of Motor Carrier Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5204OpenMr. Bob Davis Quality Control Manager Horton Emergency Vehicles 500 Industrial Mile Road Columbus, OH 43228; Mr. Bob Davis Quality Control Manager Horton Emergency Vehicles 500 Industrial Mile Road Columbus OH 43228; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1993 requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206 as it affects the rear doors of ambulances that your company manufactures. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that your ambulances have two rear doors, and that each has locking mechanisms that can be operated both from the outside and inside of the doors. Your specific question is whether you can eliminate the inside locking mechanism on one of the rear doors without violating Standard No. 206. The language in S4.1.3 of Standard No. 206 that you noted in your letter (i.e., 'Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.') refers to side doors, but not to rear doors. Thus, your company's ambulances need not be equipped with locking mechanisms on each rear door. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0456OpenMr. Davis Piper, Vice President, Forse Cleanamation, 1500 West Second Street, Anderson, IN 46011; Mr. Davis Piper Vice President Forse Cleanamation 1500 West Second Street Anderson IN 46011; Dear Mr. Piper: This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1971, to Mr. J.E Leysath of this Office requesting information relative to the lighting requirements applicable to your E-Z Tow towing unit.; The E-Z Tow unit is a 'motor vehicle' as defined by the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 since it is a 'vehicle . . . drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.' However, since it is designed to 'tow' rather than to 'carry' property, the E-Z Tow unit is not a 'trailer' as defined for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Since it is an unclassified 'motor vehicle,' the lighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 are not applicable, therefore, you need only to comply with the lighting requirements of the States in which you sell or use the unit.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4946OpenThomas A. Gerke, Esq. Smith, Gill, Fisher & Butts 1200 Main St., Suite 3500 Kansas City, MO 64105-2152; Thomas A. Gerke Esq. Smith Gill Fisher & Butts 1200 Main St. Suite 3500 Kansas City MO 64105-2152; "Dear Mr. Gerke: This responds to your December 23, 1991 lette concerning Safety Standard 107, Reflecting Surfaces. You asked us to confirm the interpretation of the standard set forth in my September 3, 1991 letter to Mr. Thomas Steinhagen. The interpretation is correct. My letter to Mr. Steinhagen was about the applicability of Standard 107 to a replacement windshield wiper arm and blade, a type of motor vehicle equipment that your client, Rally Manufacturing, seeks to sell. You state that Rally ceased producing certain windshield wiper arms and blades after NHTSA's Enforcement office notified Rally that it appeared the products did not meet the requirements of Standard 107. My letter to Mr. Steinhagen clarified the requirements of Standard 107 and the Vehicle Safety Act. I emphasized the following points in the letter: 1. Standard 107 applies to new motor vehicles, and not to items of motor vehicle equipment, such as a replacement wiper arm and blade. Replacement wiper arms and blades may be sold to consumers without violating Federal law, even if the component does not conform to the requirements of Standard 107. 2. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If a person in the aforementioned categories installed a wiper arm and blade that did not conform to the requirements of Standard 107, the person would violate 108(a)(2)(A). 3. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. 4. Regardless of whether Standard 107 applies to the replacement arm and blade, the device is subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists either in an arm and blade that conforms to Standard 107 or in one that does not, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. In your letter, you specifically ask about the sale of a replacement wiper blade 'by a wholesaler/distributor to retail stores and other similar customers without any installation service by the wholesaler/distributor.' The sale is not prohibited by Standard 107 or 108(a)(2)(A). However, the retail store or 'other similar customer' would be considered a dealer under 102(7) of the Safety Act, and thus subject to the 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A). While the dealer may sell the replacement blade, the dealer would be prohibited from installing it on a motor vehicle. I regret any confusion resulting from NHTSA's letters to your client. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5654OpenFred H. Pritzker, Esq. Pritzker & Meyer, P.A. Suite 1275 Peavey Building 730 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402; Fred H. Pritzker Esq. Pritzker & Meyer P.A. Suite 1275 Peavey Building 730 Second Avenue South Minneapolis Minnesota 55402; "Dear Mr. Pritzker: This concerns your August 29, 1995 letter about th replacement of a rear seat in a 1993 GEO Tracker with a speaker box. In response to your request that we speak with you about the issues raised in that letter, Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff spoke with you by telephone. In that conversation, you requested a written opinion. Our opinion is set forth below. According to your letter, the son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics 'super store' to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. An employee of that store removed the rear seat and replaced it with a speaker box. As part of this process, the female portion of the seat belt buckle was removed. You stated that the speaker box has a ledge not unlike a bench-type seat, the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on, and was carpeted. You represent a person who was sitting on this speaker box when the vehicle was involved in a serious collision, and believe that the electronics company violated the 'make inoperative' provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). As Mr. Glancy explained to you by telephone, NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a company violated the 'make inoperative' provision outside a compliance proceeding. I can, however, provide general information on how this provision applies in such a situation. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 required model year 1993 passenger cars and other light vehicles to have a Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear designated seating positions. NHTSA's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. However, section 30122(b) applies in the case of used as well as new vehicles. That section reads as follows: 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 safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. I can offer the following thoughts concerning how section 30122(b) would apply in the context of a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business removing rear seat belts. First, electronics companies which install stereo equipment in motor vehicles are subject to section 30122(b), given the broad language 'manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business.' Second, some specific examples will illustrate how answering the question of whether a particular action makes inoperative a device installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard depends on the underlying factual circumstances. As noted above, under Standard No. 208, seat belts were required to be installed at the rear designated seating positions in the Tracker. The definition of 'designated seating position,' set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, reads as follows: Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. . . . The simple removal of rear seat belts from designated seating positions, without other modifications to a vehicle, would obviously make inoperative a device, i.e., seat belts, installed in compliance with Standard No. 208. Similarly, the removal of rear seat belts, coupled with replacing the rear seat with another rear seat, would make the seat belts inoperative (assuming the rear seat belts were not replaced). However, if rear seat belts were removed as part of permanently converting a passenger van to a cargo van by removing the rear seat, the removal of the seat belts would not make inoperative a device installed in compliance with a safety standard. This is because Standard No. 208 would not have required rear seat belts in the absence of rear designated seating positions. Your letter raises the question of whether a speaker box of the type installed by the electronics company would be considered to provide designated seating positions. I have enclosed a copy of the final rule establishing the designated seating position definition (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979). As discussed in that notice, any position likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position. The notice includes several discussions which are relevant to the issue of whether a position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion. Included is a discussion that a manufacturer would not be responsible for abusive or unorthodox use of a particular position. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Glancy at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2191OpenHonorable Robin Beard, Member of Congress, 710 North Garden Street, Columbia, TN 38401; Honorable Robin Beard Member of Congress 710 North Garden Street Columbia TN 38401; Dear Mr. Beard: This responds to your January 29, 1976, question whether an owner of vehicle manufactured to comply with Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems, may legally disconnect portions of the brake system after a vehicle has been delivered for use in his business.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of safety components by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses. Thus, there is no prohibition on disconnection by an owner of his own vehicle's system under the Traffic Safety Act. However, State statutes, or the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that owners not disconnect safety devices without consultation with the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safest configuration of the vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting 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.