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: aiam4698OpenHerr T. Spingler Abt. K2/ELE2 Robert Bosch GmbH; Herr T. Spingler Abt. K2/ELE2 Robert Bosch GmbH; Dear Herr Spingler: This is in reply to your FAX of July l9, l990, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as 'a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sources.' In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add 'silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens.' Mr. Medlin informed you that this would be a 'bonded lens and reflector assembly.' The standard does not define 'bonded', but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the definition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely,, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5123OpenMr. Patrick R. Smorra Group Vice President Chrysler Corporation 38111 Van Dyke Avenue Sterling Heights, MI 48312; Mr. Patrick R. Smorra Group Vice President Chrysler Corporation 38111 Van Dyke Avenue Sterling Heights MI 48312; Dear Mr. Smorra: This responds to your letter of November 12 to th Administrator asking for a variance from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for vehicles that Chrysler Corporation would like to sell to foreign nationals for their use on vacation in the United States. You have inquired whether additional information is required. The agency would be willing to consider Chrysler's request through the medium of a petition for temporary exemption from one or more specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The temporary exemption, two years in duration, permits a manufacturer to sell up to 2,500 exempted vehicles in any 12-month period during the term of the exemption, subject to such terms and conditions as the agency deems appropriate. These exemptions are renewable. Indeed, NHTSA has already provided exemptions to General Motors for the same purpose as Chrysler's, pursuant to 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(d). For your guidance, I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice that granted GM's original petition in 1988. Because of the necessity to afford the public an opportunity to comment, a petitioner should anticipate an elapsed time of approximately four months between the agency's receipt of its petition and a determination on it. Should you have questions on the exemption process, Taylor Vinson of this office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263). You have also asked ' i f, upon expiration of the variance, the vehicle has not left the U.S. who is responsible for the delinquency?' This is an interesting question. The exemption is not provided directly to the purchaser. Instead, it is provided to a manufacturer to allow it to sell nonconforming vehicles to foreign nationals without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, subject to the purchaser's agreement to export the vehicle when (s)he leaves this country. Should a manufacturer sell an exempted vehicle to a foreign national knowing, or in the exercise of due care having reason to know, that the purchaser did not intend to export it, the manufacturer would have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against sale of nonconforming vehicles, notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle had been exempted. Moreover, if the manufacturer did not take appropriate steps to assure that the purchaser honored his or her commitment to export the vehicle, the agency could find that continuation of the exemption was no longer in the public interest, and cancel it. However, if the manufacturer did not know or in the exercise of due care have any reason to know that its exempted vehicles would not be exported, it would appear to have incurred no liability under the Act. As for a foreign national purchaser who fails to export a vehicle in conformity with the terms of the condition imposed by the manufacturer under the exemption, it appears that the purchaser could be deemed to have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against introduction into interstate commerce of a nonconforming vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that the manufacturer had received an exemption for the manufacture and sale of the vehicle. Finally, depending on the safety standards from which the vehicle had been excused, the owner of the vehicle might find it difficult to register it in a State without bringing it into full compliance with the safety standards. You have also asked, ' I n the unlikely event that this vehicle has an accident in which it is deemed undriveable, who is responsible for its disposition.' The answer to this question would appear to turn on the ownership of the vehicle. Since Chrysler does not intend to lease the exempted vehicles, we assume that it will transfer all right, title, and interest in them to the foreign national purchasers, and we assume that those owners will be responsible for the disposition of wrecked vehicles deemed undriveable. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam0321OpenMr. Warren S. Sumner, Sales Representative, Hamill Manufacturing Company, 61166 Van Dyke Road, Washington, MI 48094; Mr. Warren S. Sumner Sales Representative Hamill Manufacturing Company 61166 Van Dyke Road Washington MI 48094; Dear Mr. Sumner: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1971, in which you as certain questions concerning a child booster seat that you plan to market. You describe the booster seat as a rectangle about 6 inches in height, tapering to 4 inches in the front, and state that it would be advertised for use by children under 50 pounds and would not be designed to fall into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213. You also state that your engineers feel a booster chair will 'definitely help more five, six and seven year old children to use seat belts simply because these children will be able to see out of a vehicle.'; While you state that the booster seat 'would not be designed to fal into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213,' it is not clear from your description of the device that this is actually the case. If you wish an opinion on this matter, we will provide one, but to do so we will need some additional information. Specifically, we will need to know if the booster seat is to be designed or advertised for use with the vehicle seat belts, and if so, how it will be so designed or advertised.; The questionsyou (sic) ask concerning the booster seat are: (1) Can w set a minimum of 50 or 60 pounds?(2)Exactly (sic) what is the maximum child weight covered under MVSS No. 213? and (3) What recommended weight can we advertise as a minimum for our booster seat?; The answers to these questions do not depend on whether the standar applies to your booster seat. If the device is a child seating system, Standard No. 213 does not specify the minimum or maximum heights or weights for children who may use it. Under the standard, it is up to the manufacturer to determine, based upon the design of each particular child seating system, the heights and weights of children for which he recommends the child seating system.; If the device is not a child seating system, the manufacturer is no required to recommend any heights or weights for children who can use it. Should he choose to do so, however, the heights and weights recommended must be consistent with the safe use of the device.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5573OpenMilford R. Bennett, Director North American Operations Safety Affairs and Regulations General Motors Corporation 30200 Mound Road Warren, Michigan 48090-9010; Milford R. Bennett Director North American Operations Safety Affairs and Regulations General Motors Corporation 30200 Mound Road Warren Michigan 48090-9010; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to General Motors' (GM's) inquiry raised in a June 16, 1995 meeting with the agency, regarding the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 for determining whether a vehicle is in the 'park' position. Under those procedures, a vehicle is deemed to be in park if it ceases rolling within 150 mm. You were concerned that different methods of measuring this distance could result in some vehicles not complying with the requirement that the vehicle roll less than 150 mm. The short answer to your question is that the test procedure is a 'static' measurement procedure. In other words, the agency will not measure the distance that a vehicle has rolled until after the vehicle has completely ceased moving. This agency recently amended Standard No. 114, adding test procedures to determine whether the key can be removed when the transmission is in positions other than the 'park' position and that the transmission remains locked in 'park' after key removal. (60 FR 30006, June 7, 1995) NHTSA initiated that action in response to a petition from the automotive industry alleging that such a procedure was needed to make the standard objective. Section S4.2.1(a)(3) of the amended standard specifies that ' e ach vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park.' To demonstrate that the vehicle is in 'park' prior to attempting to remove the key, the test procedures in S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both state: Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). Move the shift mechanism to the 'park' position. Apply the service brakes. Release the parking brake. Release the service brakes. . . . Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm after release of the service brakes. In the June 16 meeting with the agency, GM stated that vehicle movement could be measured in two different ways: dynamic or static. GM inquired as to which method NHTSA interpreted the standard as specifying, because the results using these two methods would be different. The 'dynamic' method of measuring vehicle movement was described by GM as measuring the maximum play-out of a spool of wire attached to the front bumper after release of the service brakes. The 'static' method would measure vehicle movement from a reference point on the wheels after the vehicle has come to a complete stop. Under the dynamic method, a portion of the measured play-out would be due to the 'rocking' motion of the vehicle's chassis on its suspension when the transmission engaged. The driveline components would also contribute some movement by temporarily storing some of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle by flexing and twisting. However, both of these contributions to total rearward movement are temporary, disappearing after the vehicle comes to rest, as in the static measuring method. GM presented test data for certain vehicles and theoretical worst-case calculations of static roll distance on non- production hypothetical vehicles and one test vehicle. The test data showed that dynamic measuring produces larger measurements of roll than does static measuring. NHTSA interprets the limitation on vehicle movement specified in S4.2.1(a)(3) as referring to static movement. The agency did not contemplate using the dynamic method. The agency intends to measure only permanent components of total vehicle movement, using the 'static' method. When conducting compliance testing, NHTSA will measure vehicle movement from a reference point such as the wheel centerline position. The starting time for the measurement will be at the moment before the service brakes are released. The ending time of the measurement will be when the vehicle has completely ceased moving, bouncing, and rocking (i.e., until the vehicle is again 'static'). This agency believes that its confirmation that the static test method is the proper method should relieve any realistic concerns regarding compliance of the 1996 model year vehicles GM tested, and probably of any future vehicles as well. The actual tests GM conducted in preparation for the meeting with NHTSA all showed static roll distances well within the requirements of Standard No. 114. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1863OpenMs. Mary Jo Apone, 23138 Demley Drive, Mt. Clemens, MI 48043; Ms. Mary Jo Apone 23138 Demley Drive Mt. Clemens MI 48043; Dear Ms. Apone: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, commenting on th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) January 2, 1975, proposal to reduce the performance requirements of the Federal bumper standard.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost-beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal brought to light additional data. The NHTSA carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency concluded that the existing 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975 (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6.)(sic); I would like to point out that the bumper standard, as it currentl exists, has no direct effect on occupant safety in collisions. The safety benefits of the standard relate to the prevention of damage to safety-related components such as headlmaps (sic), fuel and cooling systems and exhaust systems. It is the after-crash dangers that would exist if a vehicle were driven with any of the specified vehicle systems inoperative that the standard focuses on. Therefore, a reduction in the performance requirements would not expose occupants to greater hazards during a collision itself.; We appreciate your interest. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3921OpenMr. D. W. A. Bennett, Managing Director, Pacific Helmets (N.Z.) Ltd., P.O. Box 866, Wanganui, New Zealand; Mr. D. W. A. Bennett Managing Director Pacific Helmets (N.Z.) Ltd. P.O. Box 866 Wanganui New Zealand; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to your inquiry about ventilation holes in the front o motorcycle helmets currently being manufactured by other companies. You give the location of these ventilation holes as being between the reference plane and the test line, one inch above that plane, and ask whether these holes are permitted under Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; Standard No. 218 requires, in paragraph S5.4, that: 'Each helmet shal have a protective surface of continuous contour at all points on or above the test line described in S6.1.3.' In paragraph S6.1.3, this test line is required to be drawn one inch above the reference plane in the frontal portion of the helmet. The continuous contour requirement is important because both the impact attenuation and penetration tests in the standard are performed on the helmet area above the test line. This helmet test area is the shaded area illustrated in Figure 2 of Standard No. 218. Therefore, any ventilation holes located between the reference plane and the test line in the front portion of a helmet would be permitted under the standard, as long as they are not located on or above the test line.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3472OpenMr. Jerome N. Sonosky, Mr. Mark S. McConnell, Hogan & Hartson, 815 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Jerome N. Sonosky Mr. Mark S. McConnell Hogan & Hartson 815 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Messrs. Sonosky and McConnell: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1980, in which yo petitioned the agency to withdraw its recommended definition of 'moped' and to define the vehicle commonly referred to as a 'moped' uniformly throughout the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your first petition requests the withdrawal of the recommende definition of 'moped', which the agency made available as part of its series of recommendations relating to this category of vehicles.; The principal issue relates to the agency's definition of moped as category of vehicles with pedals. In your view, the pedal requirement arbitrarily discriminates against vehicles which lack pedals but are otherwise identical to the vehicles defined in the current recommendations. To evaluate your position, the agency carried out a comparison of moped performance parameters to ascertain whether quantifiable safety differences exist between vehicles with and without pedals. The results of this analysis indicated that there are no significant differences, and the agency has therefore determined that it is appropriate to amend the definition of moped in the recommendation by removing the reference to pedals. In addition, the agency notes that the Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) regulations do not require mopeds to have pedals. Thus, to adopt your proposed definition will also aid international harmonization.; Consequently, the agency will shortly issue an advisory notice to th public of the amended definition, as it appears below, and seek additional public views for a period of thirty days.; >>>'Moped' means a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mil is 30 mph or less, which is equipped with a motor that produces 2 brake horsepower or less. If an internal combustion engine is used, the piston displacement shall not exceed 50 cc and the power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears.<<<; Your second petition relates to making uniform the various definition of low-horsepower motorcycles found in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571).; We agree that the time is now ripe to make consistent the variou definitions which apply to mopeds, and will issue shortly a notice of proposed rulemaking to add to 49 CFR 571.3(b) the definition of 'moped' stated above. Likewise, we propose to substitute the term 'moped' for the various phrases which define this class of vehicles in 49 CFR 571.108, 49 CFR 115, and 49 CRF (sic) 571.122. In the case of 49 CFR 567.4(g), the presence of the term 'moped' in 49 CFR 571.3(b) offers sufficient authority to identify a moped on the certification label when appropriate. Since the agency has indicated that it will soon propose rescinding Standard 127, it is unnecessary at this time to propose revisions to that standard.; Along with your petitions, you have asked a number of question relating to current NHTSA regulations. The first four questions and their answers appear below. The remaining two questions, relating to the effects on State law of FMVSS 108 and 127, are being considered separately and will be answered upon our completion of an overall review of the issue of preemption under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act,; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Question 1: The present definition of 'motor-driven cycle' is 'motorcycle' with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less. 49 CFR S571.3(1979). Does this mean that a 'motor-driven cycle' must comply with all the regulations that affect motorcycles, unless it is specifically excepted?; Answer: Motor-driven cycles must comply with all regulations that appl to motorcycles unless specifically exempted. If a particular subcategory of motor-driven cycles is exempted, that subcategory of motor-driven cycles need not comply.; Question 2: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ('FMVSS') 123, 49 CF 571.123 (1979), requires that motorcycles be equipped with footrests at each seating position. If mopeds are subject to this standard, do the pedals on mopeds that are equipped with pedals satisfy the footrest requirement for the operator's seating position?; Answer: Yes. The pedals on the moped serve as footrests even when th moped is being propelled by the engine.; Question 3: FMVSS 123 also requires that motorcycle brake systems b operable either by a right foot control or by handlebar controls. If mopeds are subject to this standard, are mopeds with propulsion pedal operated brake systems in compliance?; Answer: Yes. Since such brakes are operable by the feet, they woul comply with the requirement.; Question 4: FMVSS 127, 49 CFR S571.127 at S.3 (1979) exclude motor-driven cycles from its requirement that each motor vehicle should have a speedometer. FMVSS 123 sets marking and illumination requirements for motorcycle speedometers, 49 CFR S571.123 at S.1, but does not exclude motor- driven cycles. If the manufacturer of a cycle that is excluded by FMVSS 127 decides voluntarily to equip its product with a speedometer, must that speedometer conform with the requirements of FMVSS 123? Must it conform with the requirements of FMVSS 127?; Answer: FMVSS 123 requires that if a motorcycle uses a speedometer that speedometer must meet all requirements of that standard. The fact FMVSS 127 requires certain vehicles to have speedometers does not affect the uniformity requirements of FMVSS 123. Therefore, the manufacturer of motor driven cycles whose maximum attainable speed in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less need not equip such cycles with a speedometer, but if it wishes to do so, the speedometer must comply with FMVSS 123.; |
|
ID: aiam3188OpenR. H. Brushwood, The Hartford, Hartford Plaza, Hartford, CT 06115; R. H. Brushwood The Hartford Hartford Plaza Hartford CT 06115; Dear Mr. Brushwood: This is in response to your letter of December 27, 1979, wherein yo asked whether the Hawaii Interim Certificate of Accurace complies with the Federal odometer disclosure regulations. You are correct in believing that it does not. In order to comply it must include a statement that the odometer reading contained therein reflects the actual mileage, the mileage over 100,000, or does not reflect the actual mileage. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3022OpenMr. Kenneth E. Tobin, Jr., Executive Secretary, Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau, 900 Spring Street, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Mr. Kenneth E. Tobin Jr. Executive Secretary Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau 900 Spring Street Silver Spring MD 20910; Dear Mr. Tobin: This is in reply to your letter of May 27, 1969, in which you submi information and photographs of mobile concrete plants, and ask whether they are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, with a view to determining whether comments should be submitted to Docket 1-11, Rear Underride Protection.; The matter of whether pieces such as the subject concrete plants ar motor vehicles within the meaning of section 203(3) of the Act, and also 'trailers' within the meaning of the proposed underride standard, is presently under consideration by this Agency.; We encourage your organization and its members to submit to the docke any materials that they consider relevant to the subject.; Sincerely, Howard A. Heffron, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4708OpenMr. Lowell W. Sundstrom, Jr. P.O. Box 2427 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110; Mr. Lowell W. Sundstrom Jr. P.O. Box 2427 Salt Lake City Utah 84110; "Dear Mr. Sundstrom: This is in response to your letter of December 9 1989 to this office, asking us to confirm your opinion that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302) does not apply to the 'HOOD LOCKER' product you describe in your letter. You state that this product will be a plastic box to hold tissues which consumers may use to wipe off the engine crankcase dipstick when checking the crankcase oil. According to your letter, the product can be mounted near or on the vehicle fender well, on the under side of the hood, on the side or top of the air cleaner, or in another location near the dipstick. You believe that Standard No. 302 does not refer to the product because it will not be placed within the occupant compartment of motor vehicles and will not be placed within one-half inch of any occupant's air space. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that every one of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act also gives this agency authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 302. That standard sets forth flammability resistance requirements applicable to all new motor vehicles. Therefore, any motor vehicle manufacturer that installs your 'HOOD LOCKER' as original equipment in its vehicles must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 302, with the 'HOOD LOCKER' installed. However, Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment, as your 'HOOD LOCKER' appears to be. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard No. 302 before offering it for sale. Parenthetically, I note that your observation is correct that Standard No. 302 applies only to materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, and not to materials used in an engine compartment that is separated from the occupant compartment. However, there are other statutory requirements that may affect this product. First, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as this 'HOOD LOCKER' are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either the equipment manufacturer or this agency were to determine that the 'HOOD LOCKER' contained such a defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers. Second, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. To avoid a 'rendering inoperative' violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the 'HOOD LOCKER' and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the 'HOOD LOCKER' in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The most relevant safety standards would seem to be Standards No. 113, Hood Latch System, and 302. If the installation of the 'HOOD LOCKER' would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the 'HOOD LOCKER' can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements. I trust that we have been responsive to your questions. For your information, I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and information on how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
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.