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: aiam0704OpenMr. Harvey Livingston, Livingston's Tire Shop, North Main Street, Hubbard, Ohio 44425; Mr. Harvey Livingston Livingston's Tire Shop North Main Street Hubbard Ohio 44425; Dear Mr. Livingston: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1972, requesting a lette from NHTSA to the effect that tire manufacturers are free to sell you new repairable tires which you plan to repair and sell. We have assumed that the manufacturers of the tires do not believe that they conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. 'New Pneumatic Tires,' and that they have not certified conformance to the standard, as this is apparently the reason for their reluctance to sell you these tires.; Paragraph S6. of Standard No. 109 provides, among other things, tha passenger car tires that are not certified, defined as 'reclassified tires,' must bear a label (specified in the standard) stating that they are not to be sold for use on passenger cars.; If you wish to purchase reclassified tires, repair them, and resel them for passenger car use, you must ensure that they conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 109 (paragraphs S1. through S5.). and relabel and certify them in accordance with paragraph S4.3.; You should be aware that the NHTSA has proposed, in a notice date November 27, 1971 (36 F.R. 22688, copy enclosed) to prohibit the sale for any purpose of reclassified tires.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1816OpenMr. Hironori Tanaka, Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd., 9, 1-chomee, Nishiyabushitacho, Nishiku, Nagoya, Japan; Mr. Hironori Tanaka Toyoda Gosei Co. Ltd. 9 1-chomee Nishiyabushitacho Nishiku Nagoya Japan; Dear Mr. Tanaka:#This responds to your letter of February 15, 1975 requesting an interpretation of the adhesion requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*.#You have presented a diagram of multilayer air brake hose and suggested that S7.3.7 of the standard applies only to the adhesion between the outer cover and the upper braid of the hose. That interpretation is incorrect. The requirement of S7.3.7 is that:>>>An air brake hose shall withstand a tensile force of 8 pounds per inch of length before separation of adjacent layers (S8.6).<<<#The NHTSA interprets this requirements as applying to each pair of adjacent layers of the hose, not merely to the outermost pair.#Yours truly, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5506OpenMajor Glen Gramse Minnesota State Police 444 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101; Major Glen Gramse Minnesota State Police 444 Cedar Street St. Paul MN 55101; "Dear Major Gramse: It has been brought to our attention by Mr. R.C Rost of Minnesota Body and Equipment that there is a question regarding Minnesota's law concerning buses used for Head Start programs. According to Mr. Rost, Minnesota prohibits these buses from being equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. He requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify any inconsistencies between the Federal and State law. As explained below, to the extent there is a conflict between Federal and State law, Federal law would prevail in this matter. All manufacturers and sellers of new school buses must comply with the Federal law by manufacturing and selling vehicles that are equipped with school bus lights and stop signal arms. By way of background, Congress has directed this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSSs for school buses, including ones requiring these buses to have warning lights and stop arms. The Federal law requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary, or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSSs for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement. NHTSA's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore 'schools' under NHTSA's statute. Accordingly, buses transporting students to and from Head Start facilities are defined as school buses under Federal law and are therefore subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Any manufacturer that omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 or the stop signal arm required by paragraph S5 of Standard No. 131 (or that delivers a bus with these devices inoperative), is in violation of Federal law, and subject to recall provisions and civil penalties. The effect of the statute's preemption provision is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that State standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light or stop arm requirements as a higher standard of performance. Thus, regardless of how a State defines 'School bus,' a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with warning lights or stop arms. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads (including the equipment on the vehicles), those State laws may not override Federal laws for what type of safety equipment must be installed on new vehicles. I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2369Open*AIRMAIL*, William K. Rosenberry, Esq., Attorney at Law, Parkway Central Plaza, 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 713, Arlington, TX, 76011; *AIRMAIL* William K. Rosenberry Esq. Attorney at Law Parkway Central Plaza 611 Ryan Plaza Dr. Suite 713 Arlington TX 76011; Dear Mr. Rosenberry: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflet of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client 'may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements' of Standard No. 302.; You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et* *seq*) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 *Seating Systems*, No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*, No. 210 *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages* and No. 302 *Flammability of Interior Materials*.; As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the additio of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).; With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabri supplies 'test each fabric lot for flammability before certification.' In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of 'due care' the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the 'warranty' of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a 'due care' defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.; Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification an remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 *et* *seq*) if a noncompliance of safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.; I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207 208, 210, and 302 for your information.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0354OpenMr. William J. Henrick, Assistant Counsel, The General Tire & Rubber Company, One General Street, Akron, OH 44309; Mr. William J. Henrick Assistant Counsel The General Tire & Rubber Company One General Street Akron OH 44309; Dear Mr. Henrick: This is in response to your letter of May 17, 1971, concerning th applicability of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. 574) to trailers as expressed in our letter of March 18, 1971, to Mr. Charles O. Verrill.; As you mentioned in your letter, under the regulation, a vehicle deale has the responsibilities of a tire dealer if he adds or changes the tires on a vehicle he sells. This was considered appropriate because the manufacturer has little, if any, control over which tires go on which vehicles if the tires are shipped separately. In such a case, the vehicle dealer will be mounting the tires and therefore it is logical that he record the name and address of the first purchaser along with the identification number of the tires mounted on the vehicle and forward this information to the tire manufacturer.; The Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation and th Certification Regulation for Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages are two completely different regulatory matters. The factors which dictate the related responsibilities of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and the final-stage manufacturer for purposes of certification are not necessarily relevant to the tire identification regulations.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2693OpenMr. John W. Kourik, Chief Engineer, Wagner Electric Corporation, 11444 Lackland Road, St. Louis, MO 63141; Mr. John W. Kourik Chief Engineer Wagner Electric Corporation 11444 Lackland Road St. Louis MO 63141; Dear Mr. Kourik: This responds to Wagner Electric Corporation's October 26, 1977 request for confirmation that S5.6.4 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, does not prohibit the use of a two-valve sequential means to release the parking brakes on a towed vehicle.; I have enclosed for your information an interpretation that addresse this question, stating that a two-valve sequential release is permissible under S5.6.4.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5156OpenMr. Donald L. Anglin 706 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903; Mr. Donald L. Anglin 706 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville VA 22903; "Dear Mr. Anglin: This responds to your letter in which you aske whether removing the self- adjusters on a motor vehicle's drum brakes constitutes a violation of the 'anti-tampering' provisions of several Federal laws, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this agency's regulations. You will need to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for an interpretation of the Clean Air Act. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act') requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the standards issued by NHTSA are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. NHTSA recently amended these standards to require vehicles to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. (57 FR 47793, October 20, 1992) This rule takes effect on October 20, 1993 for vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes and on October 20, 1994 for vehicles equipped with air brakes. Until these effective dates, a vehicle is not required to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. You specifically asked about the agency's 'anti-tampering' provisions. While the agency has no provision called this, the Safety Act does include a provision known as the 'rendering inoperative' provision which is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. For vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the new requirements for automatic adjusters, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses will be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) from rendering the devices inoperative. For vehicles manufactured before that time, such an entity should ensure that removal of the adjusters does not otherwise render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with a safety standard. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel "; |
|
ID: aiam3981OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your two letters to the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. We apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.; Your December 6, 1984 letter asked about paragraph S5.4.1 of Standar No. 217 and the ellipsoid used to measure the unobstructed opening of a pushout window or other emergency exit. To simplify matters, I will refer to the illustration you attached with your letter. You asked whether you may rotate the ellipsoid in such a way that axis C-D may be horizontal instead of axis A-B.; By way of background information, I would like to explain that NHTS does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letters.; Paragraph S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217 states that: >>>After the release mechanism has been operated, each push-out windo or other emergency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall...be manually extendable by a single occupant to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches.<<<; Since the language of section S5.4.1 requires only that '*a* majo axis' of the ellipsoid to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the emergency exit, you are not prohibited from positioning the ellipsoid with only a single major axis, such as C-D, horizontal. If there is unobstructed access of the ellipsoid through the opening, with major axis C-D horizontal, then the emergency exit meets the requirement of S5.4.1 as that section is written.; Even if the design of the exit would not violate S5.4.1, however, w urge you to ensure that the design would not complicate efforts of the passengers to use the emergency exit. It appears that the intent of the agency was for the *plane* generated by the major axes to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the exit. Otherwise, since *a* major axis of the ellipsoid will at all times be horizontal, no matter how the ellipsoid is passed, the benefit of such a requirement would be reduced. Further, the opening to the emergency exit could be significantly reduced when the only horizontal major axis is C-D.; The agency issued an opinion in April 1977, stating that S5.4.1 an S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 require the long side of a rectangular roof exit to be parallel to the center line or the side wall of a bus. That opinion interpreted S5.4.1 as requiring the ellipsoid to be passed through the exit with more than one of its major axes horizontal. That interpretation relied on the intent of the standard, but not the language of S5.4.1. This letter reconsiders the 1977 opinion and holds that the language of S5.4.1 requires only one major axis of the ellipsoid to be horizontal.; The two questions in your December 13, 1984 letter dealt with a outside release mechanism for pushout rear emergency windows. In a telephone call to this office on February 5, 1985, you said that the rear emergency pushout windows would be on school buses and buses other than school buses. You also asked whether an outside release mechanism may be installed on rear emergency doors on buses other than school buses.; Your first question was whether the following interpretation wa correct:; >>>FMVSS 217 does not require emergency exits to have outside releas mechanisms, except for school bus emergency doors. Therefore, if we provide an outside handle to operate a pushout rear emergency window, it does not have to meet any force level or type of motion requirements.<<<; You are correct that Standard No. 217 does not require emergency exit on school buses to have outside release mechanisms, with the exception in S5.3.3 for school bus emergency doors. We assume that there are release mechanisms for the pushout rear emergency windows located within the bus which meet all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. If the emergency exit meets all applicable requirements of the standard, an outside release mechanism for a pushout rear emergency window that is provided in addition to the release mechanisms required by the standard need not meet any force application and type of motion requirements.; Your second question was whether the outside handle on the pushout rea emergency window could be equipped with a key operated mechanism that disengages the handle from outside the bus for security purposes. The handle, even when locked from the outside, does not ever prevent operation of the window's release mechanisms from inside the bus. The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 217 does not prohibit the type of handle you described when all applicable requirements of the standard can be met.; Our answers given above apply to outside release mechanisms on pushou rear emergency windows on school buses and buses other than school buses.; An outside release mechanism on rear emergency doors on buses othe than school buses would likewise not have to meet any force application and type of motion requirements, if the emergency door meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. The outside release mechanism can be equipped with the locking device you described, provided that Standard No. 217's requirements are met.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5443OpenMr. Ralph Harpster Laguna Manufacturing, Inc. P.O. Box 3236 Turlock, CA 95381; Mr. Ralph Harpster Laguna Manufacturing Inc. P.O. Box 3236 Turlock CA 95381; "Dear Mr. Harpster: This responds to your letter of June 21, 1994 requesting information on whether a 'replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars' complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. During a July 1, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the seat could be installed either before or after the first retail sale of the police car. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, 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. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to a prisoner transport seat. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth strength requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the prisoner transport seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios. Installation as Original Equipment Standards No. 207, No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the prisoner transport seat installed in the vehicle. Unlike the other four standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. The manufacturer of the seat belt system provided with the prisoner transport seat is responsible for certifying that the seat belt complies with Standard No. 209. Your letter specifically asks whether the safety belt system installed with the prisoner transport seat complies with all applicable requirements. Currently, Standard No. 208 requires an integral Type 2 (lap and shoulder) seat belt assembly at all forward-facing rear outboard seating positions, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear seating positions. Standard No. 208 also requires the lap belt portion of the Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing rear outboard seating position to have an emergency locking retractor. Thus, because the seat belt assembly for the prisoner transport seat has a manual retractor, the seat cannot be installed at a forward-facing rear outboard seating position. We note that Standard No. 208 requires emergency locking retractors to ensure improved comfort and convenience for safety belts. The purpose is to make it more likely that the typical vehicle occupant will use his or her safety belts, and also to reduce the likelihood of excessive slack in safety belts during use. You wish to use manual retractors because of special circumstances that arise when the rear seats of police vehicles are used to transport prisoners, i.e., a desire to keep the prisoners solidly restrained in the seats. However, Standard No. 208 specifies the same occupant crash protection requirements for police vehicles as other vehicles, and does not include an exception in this area. A possible solution to your problem may be to install your belt system (with manual retractors) in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208. Provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts. Your belt system would, of course, still have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209, since it would be considered a 'seat belt assembly.' Installation Prior to First Sale If a prisoner transport seat were added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Installation After First Sale 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. This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a prisoner transport seat if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the seat did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. Thus, if a police department were to modify its own vehicles to install a prisoner transport seat, it would not be a violation of this provision, even if the original belts were replaced by belts with manual retractors. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2386OpenMr. Joseph G. Bishop, President, W.S. Coach Corp., Suite 100 Brookhaven Office Park, 3001 LBJ Freeway, Dallas TX 75234; Mr. Joseph G. Bishop President W.S. Coach Corp. Suite 100 Brookhaven Office Park 3001 LBJ Freeway Dallas TX 75234; Dear Mr. Bishop: This is in response to your July 7, 1976, request for informatio regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to 'rumble seat kits' for installation in passenger cars. The answers to your questions are as follows:; (1) 'Is there any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or Regulation that would preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?'; >>>The answer to your question is no.<<< (2) 'What are the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards an Regulations that would be specifically applicable to the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?'; >>>Installation of the rumble seats could affect compliance of th vehicle with the following safety standards: Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, and Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims*.; We are assuming that the rumble seats would be installed in complete vehicles that are already certified, in which case the alterer would be required to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.7 requires one who alters a previously certified vehicle, prior to its first sale, (by other than readily attachable components) to affix an additional label to the vehicle, stating that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards after the alteration. It should be noted that any additional weight created by the rumble seats or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.; We also would point out that 49 CFR Part 575 requires manufacturers t provide consumer information regarding vehicle stopping distance, tire reserve load, and acceleration and passing ability, at the point of first sale of the vehicle and along with the purchased vehicle. The increased weight created by the rumble seats could require modification of the information that would have to be provided.<<<; (3) 'Is there any State or Local Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that t your knowledge may preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>We are not aware of any State or local regulations that woul preclude installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles.<<<; (4) Can you furnish a list of Government approved independent testin facilities for FMVSS compliance testing?'; >>>The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend that any particular testing center be utilized. You might wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators concerning this subject, at 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.<<<; (5) 'Can the NHTSA make any design recommendations related to th installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>The NHTSA does not provide engineering expertise regarding th manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, the agency will answer specific questions that a manufacturer might have concerning the basis for a particular performance requirement.<<<; (6) 'Is there any future or pending legislation that may be related t the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>At the present time there is no pending Federal legislation relatin to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles, nor is any such legislation anticipated by the NHTSA in the immediate future.<<<; The statements made above are directed primarily to the situation i which rumble seats would be installed prior to first sale of the vehicle, and in which the vehicle would have to be certified as being in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Please note, however, that the aftermarket installation of rumble seats might also be subject to Federal requirements.; Section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966 provides that, with one exception, 'no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair 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. . . .' Therefore, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may install the rumble seats in a motor vehicle if he knows that such installation would alter the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. For example, installation of rumble seats could possibly affect components of the vehicle that are subject to the requirements of safety standards such as Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, or Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*.; 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.