NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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.

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable 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.

More search options

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

Displaying 5751 - 5760 of 16513

Interpretations	Date
search results table
ID: aiam1959 Open Mr. George R. Semark, Manager, Vehicle Safety Activities, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 2885 St. Johns Avenue, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. George R. Semark Manager Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 2885 St. Johns Avenue Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Semark: This responds to Sheller-Globe's June 16, 1975, request for a statemen of the requirements for 1976-model multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) specified by Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.; Section S4.3 of the standard sets out the requirements for MPV's with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. These requirements are the same in the future as at present.; Section S4.2 sets out the requirements for MPV's with a GVWR of 10,00 pounds or less (S4.2.1 for vehicles until August 15, 1975, and S4.2.2 for vehicles on or after August 15, 1975 until August 15, 1977). As the standard is presently effective, S4.2.2 will require that most MPV's of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with the same seat belts and warning systems as presently installed in passenger cars. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements as they were revised October 29, 1974 (40 FR 38380, October 31, 1974). Also enclosed is a Federal Register notice of December 6, 1974, that sets out the associated warning system reguirements (sic) (40 FR 42692, December 6, 1974). The only MPV's excepted from these requirements are forward control vehicles, convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, motor homes, and vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers. They will continue to be required to meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 as presently in effect.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently propose that a manufacturer have the option of meeting the requirements of S4.2.1 or S4.2.2 until January 1, 1976. I enclose a copy of that proposal, which includes a preamble discussion of the reasons for this proposal. A final determination will appear in the Federal Register.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3964 Open Frederick B. Locker, Esq., Locker Greenberg & Brainin, Esq., One Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10001; Frederick B. Locker Esq. Locker Greenberg & Brainin Esq. One Penn Plaza New York NY 10001; Dear Mr. Locker: This responds to your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a belt which is attached to and is not easily removed from a movable shield is an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c), and may therefore be attached when the restraint is tested in test configuration II of Standard No. 213. Such a belt is an integral part of the movable shield and may be attached during test configuration II.; Your client, Collier- Keyworth, has designed a child restraint tha integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and the movable shield in a continuous connection, with the bottom of the crotch strap webbing intended to be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is positioned in the restraint. As described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed therewith, the crotch strap portion of the webbing is considered an integral part of the movable shield, because it is formed as a unit with that shield. Hence, section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213 allows you to attach the crotch strap portion of the webbing to the base of the seat during configuration II testing.; I suggest, however, that Collier- Keyworth incorporate into th restraint some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled into the base of the seat. This suggestion is based on past experience with child restraints which have both a movable shield and a crotch strap which must be buckled to adequately protect the child.; In the late 1970's, there were several child restraint designs whic had a crotch strap permanently attached to the base of the seat and a movable shield which lowered in front of the child. The designers of these restraints intended that the crotch strap be attached to the shield to properly restrain the child. However, such restraints were often misused by consumers who did not attach the crotch strap to the shield. NHTSA was concerned that in the event of a crash, a child occupant would submarine partly or completely out of restraints whose crotch straps were not fastened to the shield.; When amended Standard No. 213 was being promulgated, the agency decide to include some procedure for testing those child restraints whose design could lead a parent to believe that a child was adequately protected when the restraint was, in fact, being misused. In the case of restraints with movable shields, the agency believed that some parents would conclude that a child was protected by the restraint simply by lowering the movable shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. Test configuration II in Standard No. 213 was intended to address this situation, by attempting to ensure that child restraint designs which would likely be misused would afford some minimal level of protection when they were misused. To achieve this end, test configuration II requires that child restraints with a movable shield in front of the child be tested in a 20 mile per hour crash with the shield in front of the test dummy, but without attaching any belts which are not an integral part of the shield.; Many previous interpretations of this standard explained that sectio S6.1.2.3.1(c) allows belts which are an integral part of the movable shield to be attached during configuration II testing because the agency believed that the need to buckle such belts would be more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. That is, a parent would be less likely to conclude that the child was adequately protected if the integral belt was not buckled.; During 1980, the manufacturers of the restraints with movable shield to which crotch straps were to be attached asked NHTSA if the crotch straps could be attached to the shield during configuration II testing if the movable shield were spring-loaded so that it would not stay in front of the child unless the crotch strap were attached. The agency concluded that the rationale for not allowing the nonintegral crotch strap to be fastened during configuration II testing would not apply if the crotch strap were to be fastened to spring-loaded movable shields. Unless these crotch straps were attached, there would be nothing in front of the child to restrain him or her in the event of a crash. Therefore, NHTSA decided it was unlikely that a parent would conclude that a child would be adequately protected without attaching these crotch straps, and permitted spring-loaded movable shields to attach nonintegral crotch straps during configuration II testing under Standard No. 213.; The shield on the Collier-Keyworth child restraint is not spring-loade and thus would remain in front of an occupant regardless of whether the crotch strap is fastened. Our examination of the photographs and materials enclosed with your letter suggests that it is possible a parent might conclude that a child was adequately protected simply by lowering the shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. For instance, Figure 5 of Exhibit B shows the shield lowered and staying in place without buckling the crotch strap. I am sure that Collier-Keyworth wants to minimize the chances of this sort of misuse occurring, and will want to incorporate some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled. Such a means could be spring-loading the movable shield, sas would be required if the crotch strap were not an integral part of the shield, or could be a 'warning' label on the front of the shield explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4608 Open Mr. Jack Satkoski Spectra Enterprises East 832 11th Avenue Spokane, WA 99202-2502; Mr. Jack Satkoski Spectra Enterprises East 832 11th Avenue Spokane WA 99202-2502; "Dear Mr. Satkoski: This responds to your letter asking for informatio about the application of Federal safety standards to a 'sun visor extender' which 'attaches by means of velcro straps to the existing auto, truck, or RV's sun visor.' I regret the delay in responding. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a sun visor extender sold directly to a consumer. The Federal safety standard that regulates sun visors (Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact) applies only to new motor vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale) and not to items of aftermarket equipment such as a sun visor extender. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your sun visors contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. As stated above, the sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Safety Standard No. 201, which requires that the visor be 'constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material' and that the visor's mounting must 'present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form.' The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your sun visor extender were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor, as modified by that installation, would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 201 for your review. Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). This standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including sun visors, on new vehicles. If a new vehicle manufacturer installs your product on the new vehicle, that manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the sun visor conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard and that the extender does not interfere with or prevent that ability to comply. A commercial business that installs the sun visor on new or used vehicles would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your sun visor extender on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the device would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not reduce the effectiveness of those features and aspects of performance of the sun visor that enabled the visor to comply with Standard No. 201 or Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the sun visor extender, even if doing so would negatively affect the safety performance of the sun visor. In addition to the materials described above, we are also returning herewith the photograph and sketches you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information whose confidentiality you have asked us to maintain. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";
ID: aiam3437 Open Mr. Berkley C. Sweet, School Bus Manufacturers Institute, Truck Body and Equipment Association, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Berkley C. Sweet School Bus Manufacturers Institute Truck Body and Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Sweet: This responds to your January 19, 1981, letter making several comment about the agency's plan to modify Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, as it applies to maintenance access panels in school buses. I want to apologize for the delay in responding to your letter which was inadvertently combined with another agency action.; First, you disagree with an agency statement that manufacturers hav taken advantage of the existing maintenance access panel exemption from the standard's requirements. The agency's concern arises from several types of practices. Several manufacturers have produced buses with panels that have no wiring or other mechanisms behind them requiring maintenance. Other manufacturers have declared almost the entire rear walls of their buses as access panels. We believe that this is beyond the scope of the exemption of maintenance access panels from the standard's requirements.; Second, you ask several questions about supporting data for th standard and our planned modification of the standard. The agency is gathering information at this time and will make that data public when and if a rulemaking notice is issued.; Finally, you refer to unspecified agency statements relating t enforcement issues of noncomplying buses. We are unable to respond to this series of questions, because we are not immediately familiar with the correspondence to which you refer. If you could be more specific in your reference and in your questions, we would be happy to respond to you. If the correspondence to which you refer is from our Enforcement office, you might want to direct your inquiry to them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4258 Open Mr. William Tackett, 859 South Main, Plymouth, MI 48170; Mr. William Tackett 859 South Main Plymouth MI 48170; Dear Mr. Tackett: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of December 1, 1986 with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, affects the installation of trailer hitches on cars. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements to reduce fuel syste spillage in a crash. If a trailer hitch is installed on a new car prior to the car being first sold to a consumer, the person installing the trailer hitch would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed. Under Part 567.7, a vehicle alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards.; The installation of a trailer hitch on a used car would be affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides 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 . . . .<<<; Thus, in installing trailer hitches on a used car, a commercia business must ensure that it has not knowingly compromised the integrity of the fuel system.; In addition, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as trailer hitch, is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes how our defect regulations affect equipment manufacturers.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3067 Open Mr. D. J. Arneson, Box 141, Southbury, CT 06488; Mr. D. J. Arneson Box 141 Southbury CT 06488; Dear Mr. Arneson: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1979, which inquire whether there are any regulations governing the installation of a propane-fueled engine, or the conversation of a gasoline-fueled engine to a propane-fueled engine, in vehicles registered for use on Federal, State, and local highways.; To date, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha not exercised its authority pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (the Act), to issue a safety standard applicable to propane-powered vehicles. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, applies only to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees Fahrenheit., and propane has a boiling point well below this temperature. Despite the absence of safety standards specifically applicable to propane-powered engines, however, an installer of these systems may be subject to other Federal requirements.; Under NHTSA safety regulations, a person who alters a new vehicle prio to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is required to attach an additional label to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). This requirement would apply to a person who alters a new vehicle to install a propane fuel system. (See the enclosed pamphlet listing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and an information sheet explaining where to obtain copies of the standards.) Additionally, should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, the alterer could be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2)) Defects in the propane-fueled engines or in components used for converting a gasoline-fueled engine would be the responsibility of their manufacturers, regardless of whether they were installed in new or used vehicles. Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by either the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator or the manufacturer himself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; A person who installs a propane- fueled engine or converts th gasoline-fueled engine in a used vehicle is not required to affix an alterer's label. However, if that person is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, he must not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design originally installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety standards. (Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act); I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not bee inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1735 Open Mr. Robert A. Danis, Carlton Manufacturing Company, 1152 High Street, Central Falls, Rhode Island 02863; Mr. Robert A. Danis Carlton Manufacturing Company 1152 High Street Central Falls Rhode Island 02863; Dear Mr. Danis: This is in response to your letter of October 23, 1974, requesting ou comments on your West Coast type mirror (which includes a ground-in convex spot mirror) and information on Federal regulations for spot mirrors in general.; Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, provides minimum performanc requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. According to the standard, the outside rearview mirror required to be placed on the driver's side of the vehicle must be furnish the driver with a specified field of view to the rear of substantially unit magnification. As long as the mirror is capable of satisfying these field view requirements, the inclusion of a convex spot mirror no the plane mirror (as with the West Coast mirror) is not prohibited by the standard. If your West Coast type mirror is capable of providing the required view of substantially unit magnification independent of its convex spot mirror, it will comply with the standard.; The recent notice proposing to amend the rearview mirror standard (Ma 1, 1974, 39 FR 15143), does not alter the above described permissible use of West Coast type mirrors. No requirements for spot mirrors are contained in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; We appreciate your interest. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3708 Open Mr. William E. Meiter, Middletown Van Pool Association, 60 Wallace Road, Middletown, NJ 00748; Mr. William E. Meiter Middletown Van Pool Association 60 Wallace Road Middletown NJ 00748; Dear Mr. Meiter: This responds to your note of May 27, 1983, attaching correspondenc between yourself and a District Manager for Ford Motor Company. You requested that we investigate the Ford E-150 van (which you state is a 15-passenger van) to determine if the stated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of that vehicle is accurate.; Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required by the agency' regulations to place a certification label on the vehicle specifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations (issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966). This certification label must include information regarding the vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, as specified in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3):; >>>(3) 'Gross Vehicle Weight Rating' or 'GVWR', followed by th appropriate value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds.'<<<; Thus, you are correct in your assumption that the GVWR for 15-passenger vehicle would have to include 2,250 pounds for occupant weight. Further, if a 15- passenger vehicle has a stated GVWR of 6,200 pounds, its unloaded vehicle weight could not exceed 3,950 pounds. I cannot state whether the Ford E-150 van has an unloaded vehicle weight in excess of this figure. However, I am sending a copy of your correspondence to our Office of Enforcement so that they may review this matter.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0827 Open Mr. Roald Haugan, Director of Engineering, Airtex, 3558 Second Street North, Minneapolis, MN, 55412; Mr. Roald Haugan Director of Engineering Airtex 3558 Second Street North Minneapolis MN 55412; Dear Mr. Haugan: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'. You raise several questions in your letter which are restated below.>>>1. 'To which of the following does the law apply as of September 1, 1972:; a. New vehicles produced after that date. Standard No. 302 applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1972.; b. 'New vehicles produced before that date, but sold to the publi after that date.'; Standard No. 302 applies only to vehicles manufactured on or afte September 1, 1972, and does not apply to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1972, but sold to the public after that date.; c. 'Materials for interior repairs (replace headliner, etc.) made afte that date on vehicles produced before that date.'; d. 'Materials for interior repairs made after that date on vehicle produced after that date.'; e. 'Products designed for use in vehicles which are not origina equipment and usually not sold by auto dealers, but sold by after-market merchandisers - such items as infant seats, infant car beds, station wagon mattresses, elevating cushions, seat covers, pillows, speaker grills, curtains, gadget holders, litter bags, etc? If 'yes' to some or all of these, is it for those items produced by the original manufacturer or shipped to distributors or sold to the public after the Sept. 1 date?; Standard No. 302 does not apply to replacement parts or aftermarke materials irrespective of the date of their manufacture, shipment to distributors, or sale to the public.; 2. Standard No. 302 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenge vehicles, trucks, and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1972. Among the vehicles you have listed, only the following are included under one of the classes to which the Standard is applicable: Jeeps, dune buggies (where constructed on a new chassis), motor coaches, motor homes, chassis mounted coaches, fire trucks, ambulances, and hearses.; 3. You ask whether testing the removable covering for seat cushions i motor coaches must include the zipper and the welting, and whether the fabric on 'non-visible surfaces' must be tested together with the fabric on the visible surfaces or not at all.; The zipper and the welting are considered part of the seat cover an would be included in the testing of the cover. The surface of the seat covering, irrespective of its visibility, must meet the requirements of the Standard. In your case, since the fabric on the visible surfaces differ from that on the non-visible surfaces, each of these fabrics must meet the requirements of the Standard.; 4. You ask whether the plastic foam used for cushioning in the mattres of a station wagon or multipurpose vehicle is subject to the Standard.; S4.2 of the Standard lists mattress covers only, and does not apply t the filling of the mattress.; 5. You ask whether the 'boot' on a pick-up camper is subject to th Standard.; We would not consider the boot as you describe it to be part of th truck, and it would not therefore be subject to the Standard.<<<; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4537 Open Mr. Jim Schuld Mill Supply Inc. 3241 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114; Mr. Jim Schuld Mill Supply Inc. 3241 Superior Avenue Cleveland OH 44114; "Dear Mr. Schuld: This responds to your letter asking for informatio concerning the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of a jump seat that you said would be 'removable and able to be transferred from one truck to another.' I apologize for the delay in responding. Generally, Federal motor vehicle seating standards apply to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase by a consumer, and not to 'aftermarket' seating components added to a vehicle after such purchase. However, several of our safety standards could apply to your product if the seat is installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. Federal law would also affect your installation of the jump seat in new or used vehicles. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a removable jump seat sold directly to a consumer. Federal seating standards generally apply only to completed new motor vehicles and not to items of equipment such as a removable jump seat. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your jump seats contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If your product will be installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, then the manufacturer of the vehicle will have certain responsibilities relating to its obligation under the Safety Act to certify the new vehicle as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Federal standards for seating systems (Standard No. 207) and crash protection (Standard No. 208) apply to designated seating positions in new vehicles. While these standards do not apply to auxiliary seating accommodations (e.g., temporary or folding jump seats), the determination must be made whether your apparatus falls into this latter category and is thus excluded from coverage. Unfortunately, information provided in your letter did not describe your jump seat in sufficient detail for us to offer an opinion as to whether your particular seat is an auxiliary seating accommodation. Photographs or engineering diagrams of your product would assist us in determining whether the seat would be considered an auxiliary seating accommodation, and thus excluded from coverage under Standard Nos. 207 and 208 if installed on new vehicles. Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard establishes flammability requirements that must be met by certain vehicle components including seat cushions and seat backs on any occupant seat installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. A manufacturer installing your jump seat on a new vehicle would thus be required to ensure that any seat cushion or seat back on your product conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. You should also be aware that there are statutory considerations that affect the installation of your jump seats in new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing the jump seat to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the jump seat does not degrade from the safety of existing seating or occupant protection systems on the vehicle. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108. In summary, removable jump seats sold to motor vehicle owners as items of aftermarket equipment are not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The seat could be subject to Federal standards for seating performance and occupant crash and flammability protection if it is installed on new vehicles prior to the vehicle's first sale. Commercial businesses are prohibited from installing the jump seat if the result renders inoperative the compliance of requisite safety components or designs with Federal safety standards. Individual owners, however, are not covered by 108(a)(2)(A) and may themselves install the jump seat in their vehicles without regard to the rendering inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act. To repeat, you as the equipment manufacturer would be obligated to recall and remedy seats that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, even if the seats were installed by vehicle owners themselves. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for 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.

Interpretations	Date
search results table
ID: aiam1959 Open Mr. George R. Semark, Manager, Vehicle Safety Activities, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 2885 St. Johns Avenue, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. George R. Semark Manager Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 2885 St. Johns Avenue Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Semark: This responds to Sheller-Globe's June 16, 1975, request for a statemen of the requirements for 1976-model multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) specified by Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.; Section S4.3 of the standard sets out the requirements for MPV's with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. These requirements are the same in the future as at present.; Section S4.2 sets out the requirements for MPV's with a GVWR of 10,00 pounds or less (S4.2.1 for vehicles until August 15, 1975, and S4.2.2 for vehicles on or after August 15, 1975 until August 15, 1977). As the standard is presently effective, S4.2.2 will require that most MPV's of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with the same seat belts and warning systems as presently installed in passenger cars. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements as they were revised October 29, 1974 (40 FR 38380, October 31, 1974). Also enclosed is a Federal Register notice of December 6, 1974, that sets out the associated warning system reguirements (sic) (40 FR 42692, December 6, 1974). The only MPV's excepted from these requirements are forward control vehicles, convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, motor homes, and vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers. They will continue to be required to meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 as presently in effect.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently propose that a manufacturer have the option of meeting the requirements of S4.2.1 or S4.2.2 until January 1, 1976. I enclose a copy of that proposal, which includes a preamble discussion of the reasons for this proposal. A final determination will appear in the Federal Register.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3964 Open Frederick B. Locker, Esq., Locker Greenberg & Brainin, Esq., One Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10001; Frederick B. Locker Esq. Locker Greenberg & Brainin Esq. One Penn Plaza New York NY 10001; Dear Mr. Locker: This responds to your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a belt which is attached to and is not easily removed from a movable shield is an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c), and may therefore be attached when the restraint is tested in test configuration II of Standard No. 213. Such a belt is an integral part of the movable shield and may be attached during test configuration II.; Your client, Collier- Keyworth, has designed a child restraint tha integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and the movable shield in a continuous connection, with the bottom of the crotch strap webbing intended to be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is positioned in the restraint. As described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed therewith, the crotch strap portion of the webbing is considered an integral part of the movable shield, because it is formed as a unit with that shield. Hence, section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213 allows you to attach the crotch strap portion of the webbing to the base of the seat during configuration II testing.; I suggest, however, that Collier- Keyworth incorporate into th restraint some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled into the base of the seat. This suggestion is based on past experience with child restraints which have both a movable shield and a crotch strap which must be buckled to adequately protect the child.; In the late 1970's, there were several child restraint designs whic had a crotch strap permanently attached to the base of the seat and a movable shield which lowered in front of the child. The designers of these restraints intended that the crotch strap be attached to the shield to properly restrain the child. However, such restraints were often misused by consumers who did not attach the crotch strap to the shield. NHTSA was concerned that in the event of a crash, a child occupant would submarine partly or completely out of restraints whose crotch straps were not fastened to the shield.; When amended Standard No. 213 was being promulgated, the agency decide to include some procedure for testing those child restraints whose design could lead a parent to believe that a child was adequately protected when the restraint was, in fact, being misused. In the case of restraints with movable shields, the agency believed that some parents would conclude that a child was protected by the restraint simply by lowering the movable shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. Test configuration II in Standard No. 213 was intended to address this situation, by attempting to ensure that child restraint designs which would likely be misused would afford some minimal level of protection when they were misused. To achieve this end, test configuration II requires that child restraints with a movable shield in front of the child be tested in a 20 mile per hour crash with the shield in front of the test dummy, but without attaching any belts which are not an integral part of the shield.; Many previous interpretations of this standard explained that sectio S6.1.2.3.1(c) allows belts which are an integral part of the movable shield to be attached during configuration II testing because the agency believed that the need to buckle such belts would be more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. That is, a parent would be less likely to conclude that the child was adequately protected if the integral belt was not buckled.; During 1980, the manufacturers of the restraints with movable shield to which crotch straps were to be attached asked NHTSA if the crotch straps could be attached to the shield during configuration II testing if the movable shield were spring-loaded so that it would not stay in front of the child unless the crotch strap were attached. The agency concluded that the rationale for not allowing the nonintegral crotch strap to be fastened during configuration II testing would not apply if the crotch strap were to be fastened to spring-loaded movable shields. Unless these crotch straps were attached, there would be nothing in front of the child to restrain him or her in the event of a crash. Therefore, NHTSA decided it was unlikely that a parent would conclude that a child would be adequately protected without attaching these crotch straps, and permitted spring-loaded movable shields to attach nonintegral crotch straps during configuration II testing under Standard No. 213.; The shield on the Collier-Keyworth child restraint is not spring-loade and thus would remain in front of an occupant regardless of whether the crotch strap is fastened. Our examination of the photographs and materials enclosed with your letter suggests that it is possible a parent might conclude that a child was adequately protected simply by lowering the shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. For instance, Figure 5 of Exhibit B shows the shield lowered and staying in place without buckling the crotch strap. I am sure that Collier-Keyworth wants to minimize the chances of this sort of misuse occurring, and will want to incorporate some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled. Such a means could be spring-loading the movable shield, sas would be required if the crotch strap were not an integral part of the shield, or could be a 'warning' label on the front of the shield explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4608 Open Mr. Jack Satkoski Spectra Enterprises East 832 11th Avenue Spokane, WA 99202-2502; Mr. Jack Satkoski Spectra Enterprises East 832 11th Avenue Spokane WA 99202-2502; "Dear Mr. Satkoski: This responds to your letter asking for informatio about the application of Federal safety standards to a 'sun visor extender' which 'attaches by means of velcro straps to the existing auto, truck, or RV's sun visor.' I regret the delay in responding. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a sun visor extender sold directly to a consumer. The Federal safety standard that regulates sun visors (Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact) applies only to new motor vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale) and not to items of aftermarket equipment such as a sun visor extender. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your sun visors contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. As stated above, the sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Safety Standard No. 201, which requires that the visor be 'constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material' and that the visor's mounting must 'present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form.' The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your sun visor extender were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor, as modified by that installation, would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 201 for your review. Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). This standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including sun visors, on new vehicles. If a new vehicle manufacturer installs your product on the new vehicle, that manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the sun visor conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard and that the extender does not interfere with or prevent that ability to comply. A commercial business that installs the sun visor on new or used vehicles would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your sun visor extender on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the device would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not reduce the effectiveness of those features and aspects of performance of the sun visor that enabled the visor to comply with Standard No. 201 or Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the sun visor extender, even if doing so would negatively affect the safety performance of the sun visor. In addition to the materials described above, we are also returning herewith the photograph and sketches you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information whose confidentiality you have asked us to maintain. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";
ID: aiam3437 Open Mr. Berkley C. Sweet, School Bus Manufacturers Institute, Truck Body and Equipment Association, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Berkley C. Sweet School Bus Manufacturers Institute Truck Body and Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Sweet: This responds to your January 19, 1981, letter making several comment about the agency's plan to modify Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, as it applies to maintenance access panels in school buses. I want to apologize for the delay in responding to your letter which was inadvertently combined with another agency action.; First, you disagree with an agency statement that manufacturers hav taken advantage of the existing maintenance access panel exemption from the standard's requirements. The agency's concern arises from several types of practices. Several manufacturers have produced buses with panels that have no wiring or other mechanisms behind them requiring maintenance. Other manufacturers have declared almost the entire rear walls of their buses as access panels. We believe that this is beyond the scope of the exemption of maintenance access panels from the standard's requirements.; Second, you ask several questions about supporting data for th standard and our planned modification of the standard. The agency is gathering information at this time and will make that data public when and if a rulemaking notice is issued.; Finally, you refer to unspecified agency statements relating t enforcement issues of noncomplying buses. We are unable to respond to this series of questions, because we are not immediately familiar with the correspondence to which you refer. If you could be more specific in your reference and in your questions, we would be happy to respond to you. If the correspondence to which you refer is from our Enforcement office, you might want to direct your inquiry to them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4258 Open Mr. William Tackett, 859 South Main, Plymouth, MI 48170; Mr. William Tackett 859 South Main Plymouth MI 48170; Dear Mr. Tackett: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of December 1, 1986 with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, affects the installation of trailer hitches on cars. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements to reduce fuel syste spillage in a crash. If a trailer hitch is installed on a new car prior to the car being first sold to a consumer, the person installing the trailer hitch would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed. Under Part 567.7, a vehicle alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards.; The installation of a trailer hitch on a used car would be affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides 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 . . . .<<<; Thus, in installing trailer hitches on a used car, a commercia business must ensure that it has not knowingly compromised the integrity of the fuel system.; In addition, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as trailer hitch, is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes how our defect regulations affect equipment manufacturers.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3067 Open Mr. D. J. Arneson, Box 141, Southbury, CT 06488; Mr. D. J. Arneson Box 141 Southbury CT 06488; Dear Mr. Arneson: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1979, which inquire whether there are any regulations governing the installation of a propane-fueled engine, or the conversation of a gasoline-fueled engine to a propane-fueled engine, in vehicles registered for use on Federal, State, and local highways.; To date, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha not exercised its authority pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (the Act), to issue a safety standard applicable to propane-powered vehicles. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, applies only to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees Fahrenheit., and propane has a boiling point well below this temperature. Despite the absence of safety standards specifically applicable to propane-powered engines, however, an installer of these systems may be subject to other Federal requirements.; Under NHTSA safety regulations, a person who alters a new vehicle prio to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is required to attach an additional label to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). This requirement would apply to a person who alters a new vehicle to install a propane fuel system. (See the enclosed pamphlet listing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and an information sheet explaining where to obtain copies of the standards.) Additionally, should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, the alterer could be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2)) Defects in the propane-fueled engines or in components used for converting a gasoline-fueled engine would be the responsibility of their manufacturers, regardless of whether they were installed in new or used vehicles. Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by either the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator or the manufacturer himself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; A person who installs a propane- fueled engine or converts th gasoline-fueled engine in a used vehicle is not required to affix an alterer's label. However, if that person is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, he must not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design originally installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety standards. (Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act); I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not bee inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1735 Open Mr. Robert A. Danis, Carlton Manufacturing Company, 1152 High Street, Central Falls, Rhode Island 02863; Mr. Robert A. Danis Carlton Manufacturing Company 1152 High Street Central Falls Rhode Island 02863; Dear Mr. Danis: This is in response to your letter of October 23, 1974, requesting ou comments on your West Coast type mirror (which includes a ground-in convex spot mirror) and information on Federal regulations for spot mirrors in general.; Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, provides minimum performanc requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. According to the standard, the outside rearview mirror required to be placed on the driver's side of the vehicle must be furnish the driver with a specified field of view to the rear of substantially unit magnification. As long as the mirror is capable of satisfying these field view requirements, the inclusion of a convex spot mirror no the plane mirror (as with the West Coast mirror) is not prohibited by the standard. If your West Coast type mirror is capable of providing the required view of substantially unit magnification independent of its convex spot mirror, it will comply with the standard.; The recent notice proposing to amend the rearview mirror standard (Ma 1, 1974, 39 FR 15143), does not alter the above described permissible use of West Coast type mirrors. No requirements for spot mirrors are contained in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; We appreciate your interest. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3708 Open Mr. William E. Meiter, Middletown Van Pool Association, 60 Wallace Road, Middletown, NJ 00748; Mr. William E. Meiter Middletown Van Pool Association 60 Wallace Road Middletown NJ 00748; Dear Mr. Meiter: This responds to your note of May 27, 1983, attaching correspondenc between yourself and a District Manager for Ford Motor Company. You requested that we investigate the Ford E-150 van (which you state is a 15-passenger van) to determine if the stated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of that vehicle is accurate.; Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required by the agency' regulations to place a certification label on the vehicle specifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations (issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966). This certification label must include information regarding the vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, as specified in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3):; >>>(3) 'Gross Vehicle Weight Rating' or 'GVWR', followed by th appropriate value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds.'<<<; Thus, you are correct in your assumption that the GVWR for 15-passenger vehicle would have to include 2,250 pounds for occupant weight. Further, if a 15- passenger vehicle has a stated GVWR of 6,200 pounds, its unloaded vehicle weight could not exceed 3,950 pounds. I cannot state whether the Ford E-150 van has an unloaded vehicle weight in excess of this figure. However, I am sending a copy of your correspondence to our Office of Enforcement so that they may review this matter.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0827 Open Mr. Roald Haugan, Director of Engineering, Airtex, 3558 Second Street North, Minneapolis, MN, 55412; Mr. Roald Haugan Director of Engineering Airtex 3558 Second Street North Minneapolis MN 55412; Dear Mr. Haugan: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'. You raise several questions in your letter which are restated below.>>>1. 'To which of the following does the law apply as of September 1, 1972:; a. New vehicles produced after that date. Standard No. 302 applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1972.; b. 'New vehicles produced before that date, but sold to the publi after that date.'; Standard No. 302 applies only to vehicles manufactured on or afte September 1, 1972, and does not apply to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1972, but sold to the public after that date.; c. 'Materials for interior repairs (replace headliner, etc.) made afte that date on vehicles produced before that date.'; d. 'Materials for interior repairs made after that date on vehicle produced after that date.'; e. 'Products designed for use in vehicles which are not origina equipment and usually not sold by auto dealers, but sold by after-market merchandisers - such items as infant seats, infant car beds, station wagon mattresses, elevating cushions, seat covers, pillows, speaker grills, curtains, gadget holders, litter bags, etc? If 'yes' to some or all of these, is it for those items produced by the original manufacturer or shipped to distributors or sold to the public after the Sept. 1 date?; Standard No. 302 does not apply to replacement parts or aftermarke materials irrespective of the date of their manufacture, shipment to distributors, or sale to the public.; 2. Standard No. 302 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenge vehicles, trucks, and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1972. Among the vehicles you have listed, only the following are included under one of the classes to which the Standard is applicable: Jeeps, dune buggies (where constructed on a new chassis), motor coaches, motor homes, chassis mounted coaches, fire trucks, ambulances, and hearses.; 3. You ask whether testing the removable covering for seat cushions i motor coaches must include the zipper and the welting, and whether the fabric on 'non-visible surfaces' must be tested together with the fabric on the visible surfaces or not at all.; The zipper and the welting are considered part of the seat cover an would be included in the testing of the cover. The surface of the seat covering, irrespective of its visibility, must meet the requirements of the Standard. In your case, since the fabric on the visible surfaces differ from that on the non-visible surfaces, each of these fabrics must meet the requirements of the Standard.; 4. You ask whether the plastic foam used for cushioning in the mattres of a station wagon or multipurpose vehicle is subject to the Standard.; S4.2 of the Standard lists mattress covers only, and does not apply t the filling of the mattress.; 5. You ask whether the 'boot' on a pick-up camper is subject to th Standard.; We would not consider the boot as you describe it to be part of th truck, and it would not therefore be subject to the Standard.<<<; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4537 Open Mr. Jim Schuld Mill Supply Inc. 3241 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114; Mr. Jim Schuld Mill Supply Inc. 3241 Superior Avenue Cleveland OH 44114; "Dear Mr. Schuld: This responds to your letter asking for informatio concerning the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of a jump seat that you said would be 'removable and able to be transferred from one truck to another.' I apologize for the delay in responding. Generally, Federal motor vehicle seating standards apply to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase by a consumer, and not to 'aftermarket' seating components added to a vehicle after such purchase. However, several of our safety standards could apply to your product if the seat is installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. Federal law would also affect your installation of the jump seat in new or used vehicles. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a removable jump seat sold directly to a consumer. Federal seating standards generally apply only to completed new motor vehicles and not to items of equipment such as a removable jump seat. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your jump seats contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If your product will be installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, then the manufacturer of the vehicle will have certain responsibilities relating to its obligation under the Safety Act to certify the new vehicle as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Federal standards for seating systems (Standard No. 207) and crash protection (Standard No. 208) apply to designated seating positions in new vehicles. While these standards do not apply to auxiliary seating accommodations (e.g., temporary or folding jump seats), the determination must be made whether your apparatus falls into this latter category and is thus excluded from coverage. Unfortunately, information provided in your letter did not describe your jump seat in sufficient detail for us to offer an opinion as to whether your particular seat is an auxiliary seating accommodation. Photographs or engineering diagrams of your product would assist us in determining whether the seat would be considered an auxiliary seating accommodation, and thus excluded from coverage under Standard Nos. 207 and 208 if installed on new vehicles. Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard establishes flammability requirements that must be met by certain vehicle components including seat cushions and seat backs on any occupant seat installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. A manufacturer installing your jump seat on a new vehicle would thus be required to ensure that any seat cushion or seat back on your product conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. You should also be aware that there are statutory considerations that affect the installation of your jump seats in new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing the jump seat to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the jump seat does not degrade from the safety of existing seating or occupant protection systems on the vehicle. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108. In summary, removable jump seats sold to motor vehicle owners as items of aftermarket equipment are not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The seat could be subject to Federal standards for seating performance and occupant crash and flammability protection if it is installed on new vehicles prior to the vehicle's first sale. Commercial businesses are prohibited from installing the jump seat if the result renders inoperative the compliance of requisite safety components or designs with Federal safety standards. Individual owners, however, are not covered by 108(a)(2)(A) and may themselves install the jump seat in their vehicles without regard to the rendering inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act. To repeat, you as the equipment manufacturer would be obligated to recall and remedy seats that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, even if the seats were installed by vehicle owners themselves. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam1959

ID: aiam3964

ID: aiam4608

ID: aiam3437

ID: aiam4258

ID: aiam3067

ID: aiam1735

ID: aiam3708

ID: aiam0827

ID: aiam4537

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?