NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam1634OpenMr. F.S. Vukan, B.F. Goodrich Tire Company, 500 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44318; Mr. F.S. Vukan B.F. Goodrich Tire Company 500 South Main Street Akron Ohio 44318; Dear Mr. Vukan: This is in further reply to your letter of August 21, 1974, askin whether tires manufactured by B.F. Goodrich that are filled with 'Tyrfil' will be subject to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119.; On the basis of the information you have provided,we have determine that tires filled with Tyrfil are not 'pneumatic' tires, and are therefore subject neither to the requirements of Standards Nos. 109 nor 119. We find that Tyrfil, which is a solid polyurethane, differs significantly as a tire-filling medium from cellular foam, whose use has been determined to be within the scope of Standards Nos. 109 and 119 (37 FR 24908, November 23, 1972).; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3609OpenMr. Jerome N. Sonosky, Mr. Mark S. McConnell, Hogan & Hartson, 815 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Jerome N. Sonosky Mr. Mark S. McConnell Hogan & Hartson 815 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Messrs. Sonosky and McConnell: This is in further response to your letter concerning the applicatio of several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to mopeds. You asked whether Standard No. 108 and Standard No. 127 would preempt States statutes or regulations on the same subjects.; Your specific question on Standard No. 127 was whether section 3 of th standard, which excluded mopeds from the coverage of the standard, would preempt State laws that require all motor vehicles operated on the highways to be equipped with a speedometer. Subsequent to your letter, the agency rescinded Standard No. 127 (47 FR 7250). In rescinding the standard, the agency stated that it recognized that there is a nexus between having a speedometer and motor vehicle safety. Based on available information, however, the agency concluded that the specific requirements of the standard concerning the markings on a speedometer, such as the highlighting of the numeral '55', were not yielding and could not be expected to yield significant safety benefits. Because the marking requirements were not yielding safety benefits, the agency stated that it intended that other levels of government be preempted from establishing similar requirements. In preempting States from establishing marking requirements, the agency did not intend to preempt States from enforcing laws or regulations which only require the presence of a speedometer and do not set marking requirements for the speedometer.; Your final question concerned section 4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108 which exempts motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less from the requirement that motor vehicles be equipped with turn signal lamps. You asked if that provision preempts State laws to the extent they require all motor vehicles to be equipped with turn signal lamps. The answer is yes.; In adopting section 4.1.1.26, the agency specifically addressed th issue of what turn signal requirements are necessary and appropriate for mopeds. The agency determined that the speed and weight characteristics of mopeds made the problems associated with hand signaling less significant than they are for larger motorcycles. The agency concluded that exempting mopeds from the turn signal requirement would ease the burden of compliance for moped manufacturers without jeopardizing safety. Since Standard No. 108 specifically addresses the issue of what turn signal requirements are applicable to mopeds, States are preempted from establishing or enforcing a safety standard on that aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0926OpenMr. Steven M. Sharp, Managing Director, Intercontinental Equipment Corp., 5383 Overland Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123; Mr. Steven M. Sharp Managing Director Intercontinental Equipment Corp. 5383 Overland Avenue San Diego CA 92123; Dear Mr. Sharp: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1972. You hav enclosed a copy of a letter from Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd., dated September 14, 1972, in which it objects to the certification label that you propose to attach to Suzuki trucks imported by you for sale. The label shows Suzuki as the manufacturer and Intercontinental Equipment Corporation (IEC) as the importer of the trucks.; Suzuki bases its objection on the fact that: >>>'. . . the vehicles as manufactured by Suzuki does (sic) not confor to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards *in effect on the date of manufacture*, and it will be misrepresentation by our company to make such statement.'<<<; Suzuki also comments 'the responsibility for compliance rests sorel (sic) on both IEC and Yachiyoda but this fact is not clearly shown on the label.'; This agency's position is that the certification scheme you hav described is an appropriate one for imported vehicles that have been modified after manufacture to conform to the standards.; We do not consider the certification label necessarily to be representation by the original manufacturer. The question of who is responsible for the correctness of the certification, and for conformity, must be decided on the facts of the individual case. In this case, the representation is by IEC, not Suzuki, and IEC is responsible for conformity of the vehicle.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4436OpenMr. Andrew P. Kallman Tu-Grooves Kallman Building 205 West Saginaw Street Lansing, Michigan 48933; Mr. Andrew P. Kallman Tu-Grooves Kallman Building 205 West Saginaw Street Lansing Michigan 48933; "Dear Mr. Kallman: This responds to your letter asking for furthe clarification of a March 1, 1985 letter to you from the Chief Counsel of this agency. Your company is marketing a process in which parallel grooves are ground into the lower portion of the windshield of vehicles. In our March 1, 1985 letter to you, we set forth a general description of the requirements that would apply if the process were used on new vehicles or new windshields sold as an item of replacement equipment, and those requirements that would apply if the process were used on vehicles that had already been sold to the first purchaser or windshields that were already installed in vehicles. Your letter explains that your company now uses this process only on vehicles that have already been sold to a first purchaser and windshields already installed in vehicles. You asked for clarification of several issues in your letter. 1. Your company has obtained test reports from two laboratories on the process of grinding these parallel grooves into the lower portions of windshields. One of these reports specifically states that windshields with these grooves fully comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). You asked whether the steps your company has taken are 'sufficient to show compliance with Standard No. 205.' Response: The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not permit this agency to assure any person or entity that its products or processes comply with all applicable requirements or to 'approve' some product or process. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. Standard No. 205 requires that the windshields installed in new vehicles and new windshields sold as replacement equipment to meet certain performance requirements, and requires the windshield to be certified as complying with those requirements. You have stated that your company's process of grinding grooves into windshields will not be used on new vehicles or new windshields. Standard No. 205 does not require that windshields be certified as continuing to comply after being treated by aftermarket processes, such as your company's grooving process. Accordingly, if your grooving process is used only in aftermarket applications, your company is not required to certify that those windshields continue to comply with Standard No. 205 after grooves have been ground into the windshield. However, continued compliance with Standard 205 is important, for a different reason, discussed below. Even though Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to your process, and your company does not have to certify continued compliance with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) does impose an obligation on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses, including your licensees, with respect to aftermarket processes. That section provides: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' In this case, a number of elements of design have been installed in the windshield of motor vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 205, including impact and penetration resistance, optical deviation limitations and limitations on visual distortion. If grinding grooves into the windshield by means of your company's process would cause the windshield to no longer comply with these or some other requirements of Standard No. 205, grinding the grooves into the windshield would be a violation of the 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act. The Safety Act imposes a responsibility on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to ensure, in the first instance, that none of the aftermarket operations they perform will result in a violation of the 'render inoperative' provision. NHTSA reexamines the initial determinations made by any of these parties only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. If your company has concluded that the test reports enclosed with your letter show no 'rendering inoperative' when grooves are ground into windshields, NHTSA will not express any view on that conclusion unless and until the agency begins some enforcement proceeding to examine this grooving process. In keeping with this statutory scheme, neither our March 1, 1985 letter nor this letter expressed any agency opinion as to whether dealers using your company's process to grind grooves into windshields of vehicles would or would not render inoperative the windshield's compliance with Standard No. 205. Instead, both these letters are intended only to alert your company to the elements of design that might be rendered inoperative by grinding grooves in windshields by your process. 2. Would it be possible for your company to indicate on the windshields in which you grind these grooves that your company has 'shown compliance with Standard No. 205,' for example, by affixing a clear sticker to that effect? Response: As explained above, only new windshields or windshields installed in new vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 205. There is no requirement that windshields subjected to aftermarket processes be certified as still complying with the standard. If your company voluntarily chooses to provide some indication of continuing compliance, it is free to do so. NHTSA has long said that the only restriction on voluntary markings is that those markings must not obscure or confuse the meaning of any required markings on the product. Assuming that your voluntary markings will not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required markings on the windshield, the voluntary marking would not violate any Federal requirements. You should be aware, however, that some State laws restrict stickers and other items placed on automobile windshields. 3. Is your company required to show continuing compliance with Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting (49 CFR /571.212) for vehicles whose windshields have grooves ground in accordance with your company's process? Response: The vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that each of its new vehicles complies with the requirements of Standard No. 212. There is no obligation for any person that performs aftermarket operations on the vehicle or its windshield to certify continuing compliance with Standard No. 212. As explained above, the only requirement applicable to aftermarket operations on a vehicle is that manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses are prohibited from 'rendering inoperative' a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard, including Standard No. 212. Standard No. 212 requires a vehicle to retain a specified percentage of the windshield periphery. To avoid violating the 'render inoperative' prohibition, I suggest that you carefully examine the process by which grooves are ground into windshields and determine whether the installation of those grooves in accordance with your company's process would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 212. Your company is obliged to determine that this grooving process will not result in a rendering inoperative violation with respect to Standard No. 212. As explained above, NHTSA will not express any views about your company's determination except in the context of an enforcement proceeding. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1264OpenMr. J.C. Barford, President, JCB Plastics, Ltd., 655 Garrison Road, Fort Erie, Ontario; Mr. J.C. Barford President JCB Plastics Ltd. 655 Garrison Road Fort Erie Ontario; Dear Mr. Barford: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1973, asking whether th American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z90.1-1971 will apply to the manufacture of helmets until the March 1, 1974 effective date of Standard No. 218, 'Motorcycle Helmets.'; The Z90.1-1971 Standard is not a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar and, therefore, could only apply to helmets manufactured or sold in those States that have adopted it, and then only until the effective date of the Federal standard. For information regarding Ontario's requirements for the manufacture of helmets, I suggest you contact the Ontario Bureau of Motor Vehicles. As you indicate, any U.S. State or local requirements for the design or performance of motorcycle helmets, that have a bearing on safety, will have to be identical to the requirements of the Federal standard when it becomes effective.; I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 218 pursuant to your request. Yours Truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3259OpenMr. J. W. Lawrence, Manager, Reliability & Government Standards, White Motor Corporation, 35129 Curtis Boulevard, Eastlake, OH 44094; Mr. J. W. Lawrence Manager Reliability & Government Standards White Motor Corporation 35129 Curtis Boulevard Eastlake OH 44094; Dear Mr. Lawrence:#This responds to your letter of January 15, 1980 which requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Controls and Displays*. You described a control to be included in heavy duty truck tractors which would operate the cab marker lights and some of the trailer lamps and asked whether Safety Standard 101 would permit labeling of the control with the words 'marker lamps.'#We have concluded, for the reasons stated below, that Safety Standard 101 would not permit the control to be labeled in the fashion you suggest. However, it would permit labeling of the control with the symbol for clearance lamps designated therein accompanied by the words 'Clearance Lamps' or the abbreviation 'Cl Lps' and by the words 'marker lamps.'#With respect to vehicles including trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings exceeding 10,000 pounds manufactured before September 1, 1980, S4 of Safety Standard 101 permits manufacturers to comply with its requirements or with those of Safety Standard 101-80. S4.2.1 of Safety Standard 101 requires that a control which operates clearance lamps, identification lamps and/or side marker lamps be identified with the words 'Clearance Lamps' or the abbreviations 'Cl Lps' as shown in Table I Column 2 of the standard. In addition, S4.2.1 provides that such a control may also be identified by one of the symbols for clearance lamps shown in Columns 3 and 4 of Table I. (See Table I, Footnote 3.) S5.2.1 of Safety Standard 101-80 requires that such a control be labeled with the symbol for clearance lamps shown in Column 3 of Table I of the standard. However, this symbol may be accompanied by the word or abbreviation shown in Column 2 (i.e., Clearance Lamps or Cl Lps) and additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. (See Table I, Footnote 3.) The requirements of Safety Standard No. 101-80 will become mandatory and will supercede those of Safety Standard 101 for all vehicles to which it applies which are manufactured on or after September 1, 1980.#According to your product description, the control which you propose to label with the words 'marker lamps' would operate some of the trailer lamps and the cab marker lamps which also serve as clearance lamps. Thus, the control would be considered to operate clearance lamps and marker lamps and would be subject to the provisions of Safety Standard 101, Table I, Footnote 3. Accordingly, on vehicles manufactured *before* to September 1, 1980, the control you propose either must be identified in one of the following methods:#>>>1. with the words 'CLEARANCE LAMPS' or the abbreviations 'CL LPS', or#2. with the words or abbreviations shown in method number 1 above accompanied by the symbol shown in Column 3 of Table I or by the symbol shown in Column 4, Table I, of Safety Standard No. 101, or#3. with the symbol for clearance lamps shown in Column 3, Table I, of Safety Standard 101-80, or#4. with the symbol noted in method number 3 above accompanied by the words 'clearance lamps' or the abbreviations 'Cl Lps' as shown in Column 2 of Table I of Safety Standard 101-80, or#5. with the symbol and the words or abbreviations noted in method number 4 above accompanied by any additional clarifying words or symbols the manufacturer may choose.<<<#If the control you have proposed is included in vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1980, it must be identified as indicated in method number 3 above and may be identified as indicated in method number 4 or 5 above. Use of method number 5 above would permit use of the words 'marker lamps' in addition to the required symbol and the words 'Clearance Lamps' or the abbreviation 'Cl Lps.'#I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4066OpenMr. Patrick R. McCreary, General Manager, Van Patton Vans, 22865 Pine Creek Road, P.O. Box 1305, Elkhart, IN 46515; Mr. Patrick R. McCreary General Manager Van Patton Vans 22865 Pine Creek Road P.O. Box 1305 Elkhart IN 46515; Dear Mr. McCreary: This responds to your recent letter concerning the manufacturin operations you intend to perform on Ford Econoline vans. In a December 16 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that the vans are incomplete vehicles which you will be receiving from a Ford dealership prior to the vehicles' first sale. A company other than your own will 'stretch' the vehicles 48 to 60 inches, but your company will be completing the manufacture of the vehicle by adding seats (for 20 passengers), windows, carpeting, and so forth. You asked what your responsibilities would be under NHTSA's regulations and safety standards.; Under our regulations, a motor vehicle designed for carrying more tha 10 persons is a 'bus' (Part 571.3). Since the vans, as completed, will meet that definition, the applicable safety standards for the vehicle you will be producing are those applying to buses. If you are performing manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle, as that term is defined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 568.3, so that it becomes a completed vehicle, then Part 568, *Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages*, sets forth the requirements you must meet. Under 568.6, Van Patton Vans, as the 'final-stage manufacturer,' would be required to complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for buses in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture. Also, your company must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with the certification requirements set forth in Part 567.5, *Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages*.; I have enclosed copies of 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568, for you convenience. I have also enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's regulations and motor vehicle safety standards. Please contact my office if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4573OpenMs. Theresa Rooney Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. l00 North Centre Avenue Rockville Centre, NY ll570; Ms. Theresa Rooney Alpine Electronics of America Inc. l00 North Centre Avenue Rockville Centre NY ll570; "Dear Ms. Rooney: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that it is your understanding that any car sound system which is factory installed must have light intensities that have two values, a higher one for day and a lower one for night, that these two light intensities do not have to be variable, and that any color may be used to illuminate the system. You asked for confirmation of this understanding. As discussed below, Standard No. l0l's requirements in this area are somewhat more flexible than suggested by your letter. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The requirements of Standard No. l0l that are relevant to car sound systems are set forth in section S5.3.5. That section states: S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (ll0.6 mm) rearward of the manikin 'H' point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated. With respect to car sound systems, section S5.3.5's requirements can be summarized as follows. First, the requirements generally apply to any car sound system that is installed in a motor vehicle before its first sale to a consumer and that includes a source of illumination which is forward of the driver. Second, the section requires that any such source of illumination have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. No color requirements are specified for the source of illumination of a car sound system. I would note that, at the option of the manufacturer, motor vehicles manufactured before September l, l989, may comply with the requirements of Standard No. l00 instead of the requirements of Standard No. l0l. This provision is of relevance for some, but not all, car sound systems, and only for vehicles manufactured before September l, l989. If you desire further information about this provision, please contact us. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1771OpenMr. Paul Utans, 55 Concord Street, Englewood, New Jersey 07631; Mr. Paul Utans 55 Concord Street Englewood New Jersey 07631; Dear Mr. Utans: This is in reply to your letter of January 7, 1975, asking whether Teves brake fluid container label that you enclosed conforms to paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116.; With the exceptions noted in your letter (packaged lot identification and date of packing) the label meets our requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4089OpenMr. H. Tsujishita, Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept., Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., 1. Daihatsu-Cho, Ikeda City, Osaka Prefecture, Japan; Mr. H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Daihatsu Motor Co. Ltd. 1. Daihatsu-Cho Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture Japan; Dear Mr. Tsujishita: Thank you for your letter of October 25, 1985, concerning th requirements of Standard No. 208 and Part 581. In addition, your letter asked about the status of a response to your July 17, 1985 letter. Unfortunately, my office had not previously received a copy of your letter of July 17, 1985. This letter addresses the Standard No. 208 questions you raised. We will shortly be responding to your other questions as well.; You asked about the automatic restraint phase-in requirements o Standard No. 208. You said that it is not clear how the requirements of S4.1.3 of the standard would apply to a manufacturer that will first start manufacturing cars for the United States during the phase-in period. On April 12, 1985 (50 FR 14589), the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking which would affect the way in which a manufacturer calculates the amount of passenger cars that must be produced with automatic restraints during the phase-in period. The notice proposed that instead of using a three year average of its passenger car production for the U.S., a manufacturer could use its actual production during each of the three years of the phase-in to calculate the amount of cars that must have automatic restraints. In the case of a new manufacturer, the manufacturer would not have three prior years of U.S. production and thus would have to use its actual production during each of the affected years. We have just issued a final rule adopting that proposal. I have enclosed a copy of that final rule.; For illustrative purposes, the proposal, if adopted, would have th following effect on the examples you used. In your first example, you assumed a new manufacturer starts manufacturing passenger cars for the U.S. on August 1, 1987, and produces 3,000 cars a month. For the first phase-in period (September 1, 1986 - August 31, 1987), the manufacturer would have produced 3,000 cars and would have to equip 10% of them (300 cars) with automatic restraints. For the second phase-in period (September 1, 1987 - August 31, 1988), the manufacturer would produce 36,000 passenger cars (12 x 3,000/vehicles per month) and would have to equip 25% of them (9,000 cars) with automatic restraints. For the final phase-in period (September 1, 1988 - August 31, 1989), the manufacturer would also produce 36,000 passenger cars and would have to equip 40% of them (14,400 cars) with automatic restraints.; In your second example, a new manufacturer begins production o passenger cars for the U.S. on September 1, 1987, and produces 3,000 cars a month. During the second phase-in period, the manufacturer would have to equip 9,000 of its passenger cars with automatic restraints. During the final phase-in period, the manufacturer would have to equip 14,400 of its passenger cars with automatic restraints.; You also asked about the requirement of S4.5.1 that a vehicle must hav a maintenance label for any crash-deployed occupant protection system. You asked if the requirement only applies to air bags and does not apply to seat belt systems. The requirement applies to any crash deployed system. Thus, it applies to air bags and would also apply to an automatic safety belt that does not move into position until a crash occurs.; Finally, you asked about the warning system requirements of Standar No. 208 that would apply to a passenger car that has an automatic safety belt that meets the frontal crash protection requirement and also has a manual lap belt, provided in accordance with 4.1.2.1(c) to meet the side impact and rollover requirements of the standard. You noted that the manual belt would be required to meet the warning system requirements of S7.3, while the automatic belt would have to meet the warning system requirements of S4.5.3.3. You asked if the passenger cars must have two different safety belt warning systems with two warning lights and two audible signals.; The purpose of both warning system requirements is similar. Th requirements of S7.3 are meant to remind the driver to reengage a safety belt, in one case a manual belt and in the other a detached or released automatic belt. In addition, S4.5.3.3 is meant to warn a driver that a motorized belt is not in its locked position. Both warning system requirements specify the use of the same types of equipment, a 4 to 8 second audible warning and a continuous or flashing light. Since the purpose of the two warning system requirements is similar and they use the same equipment, the agency believes it is reasonable for a vehicle only to have one warning system, as long as it met the requirements of S5.4.3.3 and S7.3.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.