NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: 1985-03.34OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/21/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Mr. Edgar E. Clark TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Edgar E. Clark 1900 24th Avenue No. St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
Thank you for your letter of May 13, 1985, concerning the effect of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, on fuel tank repairs. You explained that you have a 1977 Dodge Concord motor home in which a leak in a plastic fuel tank was apparently repaired by a dealer. You noted that a 1981 article in Popular Mechanics magazine stated that repairs to plastic fuel tanks are not permitted by Standard No. 301, and ask us to clarify the effect of our regulations. As explained below, the magazine article is not correct; a dealer can make repairs to plastic and other types of vehicle fuel tanks. As I am sure you understand, I cannot offer an opinion on the possibility of successfully repairing a damaged plastic fuel tank. The agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, which sets safety performance requirements for vehicle fuel systems in new vehicles; a copy of the standard is enclosed. The standard applies to passenger cars, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV), trucks, buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. In addition, it applies to school buses with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds. If your motor home carries 10 or less persons and is mounted on a truck chassis, it would be considered a MPV under our regulations. Thus, if your motor home has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and was manufactured after September 1, 1976, the effective date of Standard No. 301 for MPV's, then the fuel system in your vehicle would have had to meet Standard No. 301.
For the basis of this response, I am assuming that the damage, such as a puncture or crack, that caused the leak occurred after the sale of the vehicle to its first owner. Our safety standards only apply to new vehicles prior to their first sale. The only effect our safety standards have on used vehicles is through the application of 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section provides, in part, that:
No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.... Thus, if a dealer knowingly alters the fuel system in a used vehicle, such as by adding an auxiliary fuel tank, the dealer would have to take sure that it did not render inoperative the tank's compliance with Standard No. 301. However, if after the first sale of a vehicle to the consumer its fuel tank is damaged, such as being punctured by an object in the road, so that the tank's compliance has been rendered inoperative, then neither our standards nor section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act applies. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel
Enclosure
May 13, 1985
Natl Hiway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7 St SW Washington, DC 20590
Attn: Vehicle Safety Compliance Office
Gentlemen:
I recently purchased a used motor home - a 1977 Dodge Concord made by Champion and found that the gasoline tank had a leak. The tank is made of plastic and had been repaired by the dealer according to the former owner.
Now, according to a magazine article which I am enclosing I see that repairs to plastic tanks violate Safety Standard 301. My question is: under the terms of this order do I have any recourse against the dealer who probably didn't even know there was such a regulation?
I feel the tank is very dangerous and should be replaced. So I would like to have your opinion and suggestion.
Thank you for your early attention. Yours very truly,
Edgar E. Clark Phone 813-822-9139 1900 24th Ave. No. St. Petersburg, FL 33713
"My rupture," Fred writes. "I have had to replace my heater, and I know of several other GM owners who have replaced theirs because of trouble with the GM coolant-recovery tank to the COLD-level mark on the tank."
Fred became aware of trouble when he noticed coolant dripping from the heater case of his Vega. He removed the case and found the heater had ruptured.
"Fortunately, I did not have the heater on," Fred continues. "But my friend wasn't so lucky. One day, with the heater on, he smelled antifreeze, investigating, he found an inch-deep puddle of coolant on the floor of his Corvette."
According to Fred, the siphoning process of the recovery system doesn't work in correct proportion to the ejection process. When the radiator cools off, it draws in more coolant from the recovery tank than it expels into the tank when it's hot. Someone who constantly fills the recovery tank to make up for the drop in level is only adding more fuel to the fire, so to speak, by allowing the radiator to overfill.
Fred says excessive coolant in the radiator causes extraordinary pressure on the heater and heater hoses. Early evidence of this pressure is often seen as coolant seeping past tightly clamped heater hoses.
Fred's solution is to check the coolant level in the radiator with the engine cold. It should be 2 inches below the neck of the radiator. If it isn't, drain it until it is. Then keep it there. Every few months, do check the radiator and add coolant, if necessary. In other words, forget about checking levels on the coolant-recovery tank.
Negative response
I have a 1976 Dodge W100 pickup truck. Its plastic gas tank has developed a leak in an easy-to-reach spot. Can you tell me how to repair it?--Jon Wilbur, Carlisle, Iowa.
Nope. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 stipulates that it is illegal to repair plastic gas tanks. Your only choice is to install a new one. Sorry.
GOT A PROBLEM WITH YOUR CAR?
Just ask Mort about it. Send your question to the Car Clinic, Popular Mechanics, 224 West 57th St., New York, N.Y. 10019. While letters cannot be answered individually, problems that are of general interest will be published in the column.
SERVICE TIPS
Ford Motor Co. tells us there may be a vacuum leak between the base of the carburetor and carburetor spacer of some 1977-78 Granadas, Monarchs, Fairmonts and Zephyrs with 200- and 240-cu. in. engines. A vacuum leak at this point leans out the fuel mixture and causes stalling and rough idling. The leak can usually be stopped by installing flat washers under each carburetor retaining nut and torquing retaining nuts 12 to 15 ft.-lb. Washers should have an inside diameter of 3/8 in. and be 1/16-in. thick.
If your 1981 Chrysler K-car makes a growl at low speeds, don't panic. Check to see what kind of tires are on the car. If they are Goodyear Viva fiberglass-belted tires, the growl is normal. According to Chrysler, growling noises are caused by "aggressive tread design which offers increased traction and improved handling characteristics."
GM cautions that starting-aid fluids, such as ether or gasoline, must not be injected into the air-intake system of cars and trucks having diesel engines. Their use will cause "severe internal engine damage."
Five Keys to Better Tire Mileage and Safety is the title of an informative pamphlet you can get free by sending a self-addressed, business-sized envelope to: Keys, Tire Industry Safety Council, Box 1801, Washington, D.C. 20013. |
|
ID: 1985-03.36OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/22/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102
Dear Mr. Greenhaus:
Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff. You asked us to confirm your understanding of how our regulations would affect the alteration of a new vehicle prior to its sale.
Your question specifically relates to a situation in which a dealer wants to switch, prior to sale of the vehicle, the bucket seats from one new motor vehicle to another new vehicle of the same model. You explained in a phone conversation with Mr. Oesch that changing the seats might involve some cutting and welding of the seats or their trucks. Under Part 567.7 (49 CFR Part 567.7) of our regulations, we would consider the dealer to be an "alterer". After completing the alteration, the dealer would be required by Part 567.7 to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Depending on the specific design of the vehicle seat and the actual alterations performed, the replacement of a seat would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and could be affected by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.
Thank you for providing us with the information on glass tinting. I hope this information on vehicle alteration is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 WESTPARK DRIVE . MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22102 July 8, 1985 Mr. Steven Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Agency Room 5219 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590
Dear Mr. Oesch:
Thank you for the assistance which you gave me during our telephone conversation of Friday, July 5, 1985. In answer to your question concerning automobile glass tinting, I have asked the editors of "Automotive Executive", and they have indicated to me that no articles have yet been published.
In order to confirm your understanding of the regulations, let me state that it would appear that a dealer intending to switch the bucket seats from one model vehicle to another vehicle of the same model would be required to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and, in particular, would have to meet the seating and seat belt standards found at 49 C.F.R. Sections 571.207 and 210. The dealer would meet the definition of a "person who alters certified vehicles" as described under 47 C.F.R. Section 568.8 and as such would be required to certify compliance of his alterations with the safety standards. The dealer would thus be required to conform with the specific vehicle labeling requirement spelled out at 49 C.F.R. Section 567.7.
I again thank you and the Administration for your assistance, and I urge you to call me here at NADA should I in some way be able to aid you in the future.
Sincerely yours Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs. DIG/shb |
|
ID: 1985-03.37OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/22/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Leo Kagan -- AMCO Manufacturing Corp. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605 This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1985, asking if a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The answer is no. Compliance with standard No. 108 is determined independent of whether the luggage rack is loaded. However, if the rack is installed before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, or if it is installed after sale by a person other than the vehicle owner, care must be taken to insure that the photometric and visibility requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps continue to be met with the unloaded rack in place. The lamp is intended to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions. Loading the rack in a manner that obscures the light will reduce the safety benefits that the lamp provides both the driver of the car, and of any vehicle that follows, and is a practice that should be discouraged. If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel July 19, 1985 Taylor Vinson-NHTSA Kevin Cavey suggested I write for a legal clarification relating to #571.108. Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, & associated equipment high mounted stoplamp. Since all passenger cars are to have a "brake" light (or high-mounted stoplamps) as of September 1985, would anyone having a luggage rack on the trunk lid (rear deck) and carry luggage that blocks out the brake light mounted either inside the car on the rear seat ledge or in an exterior location, be in any violation? Thanks for your help if there is any question to what I've asked please call me on 800/423-2353. AMCO MANUFACTURING CORP. Leo Kagan, Director of Marketing, Automotive Division |
|
ID: 1985-03.38OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/03/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Mr. Alan R. Kroner TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Mr. Alan R. Kroner Republican Staff Illinois State Senate State Capitol Springfield, Illinois 62706
Dear Mr. Kroner:
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1985, concerning Federal requirements for safety belts in modified vans and their effect on state safety belt use laws. I regret the delay in our response. According to your letter, a handicapped individual purchased a van and had the front seat removed to permit him to operate the vehicle from his wheelchair. You first inquired whether the vehicle is required to be equipped with a safety belt under Federal law. This agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that requires the installation of occupant restraint systems in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. Depending on its seating capacity and use, a "van" would be classified under our regulations as a bus, truck or MPV. Regardless of that classification, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a safety belt system for the driver's seating position. Belt systems may be required at other seating positions as well, depending upon the vehicle's classification. These requirements apply to any vehicle until its first sale to a consumer.
While our safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles, there are some statutory restrictions on subsequent alterations. If a van were modified after its first sale to a consumer, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:
No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety....
Accordingly, none of thoe commercial businesses could lawfully remove a safety belt installed in compliance with Standard No. 208, since such an action would "knowingly render inoperative" that safety device. This prohibition applies only to commercial businesses, not to individuals.
Vehicle owners may themselves remove a safety belt without violating Federal law. They would, however, have to comply with any State law on vehicle equipment.
Thus, in answer to your first question, a manufacturer of a van is required by Federal law to provide a safety belt system at the driver's position, and certain commercial businesses are prohibited from removing the belt.
You also requested our opinion as to whether the owner/driver of the modified van would be required to wear a safety belt under the new Illinois safety belt use law. We do not believe it would be appropriate for this agency to offer an opinion on that question, since it requires an interpretation of state law. You may wish to consult with the State Attorney General's Office or counsel for an appropriate State agency on the matter, as they are in a better position to discuss Illinois state law.
I appreciate your interest in safety belt usage and hope this information is of assistance to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure March 13, 1985
Mr. Jeffrey Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Miller:
I have a question pertaining to the modification of a vehicle for the use of a handicapped individual. This individual is a parapalegic and confined to a wheelchair. He purchased a van, had a lift hoist installed and the front seat removed. He operates the van from his wheelchair. Is this vehicle required to be equipped with a seat belt under federal law? Illinois recently passed a mandatory seat belt use law. One of the exemptions granted under this new law (95 1/2 - 12 - 603.1 Ch. 8.) states that an individual is not required to wear a seat belt if the motor vehicle is not required to be equipped with seat belts under federal law. In your opinion would this gentleman be required to wear a seat belt?
Thank you in advance for your prompt reply. Sincerely, Alan R. Kroner |
|
ID: 1985-03.39OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/04/85 FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY, DEAN HANSELL, LAW OFFICES OF DONOVAN, LEISURE, NEWTON & IRVINE TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5); LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696 TEXT: Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell: Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1985, concerning the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our reply. You asked about the requirement in S4.1.3 of the standard concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated your assumption that the standard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the United States and asked how a manufacturer is to determine if a vehicle is a part of its annual production for the United States. You pointed out that there are a number of possible sales transactions, beginning with the sale of a vehicle by Porsche to the U.S. importer and ending with the first sale to a consumer in the U.S. that can be used in determining at which point a vehicle becomes part of Porsche's annual production for the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your question. As discussed in the agency's April 12, 1985, (50 FR 14596) notice on Standard No. 208, your assumption that the term "average annual production" refers only to cars manufactured for sale in the United States is correct. S4.1.3 specifies that percentages of production are to be based on the number of cars manufactured between discrete dates. In the case of foreign cars, as in the case of domestic ones, "manufactured" means produced or assembled. Part 567 Certification (49 CFR Part 567) of the agency's regulation requires all vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to have a tag affixed to them certifying that they meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Therefore, in determining which vehicles are to be counted as the manufacturer's average annual production, the manufacturer should determine how many vehicles were produced and certified in accordance with our regulation during the applicable time period. Using production and certification provides the agency and manufacturers with an easily verifiable event to determine which cars are to be counted. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely, |
|
ID: 08-000218 covering the air bag labelOpenJames C. Chen, Esq. Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. Chen: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the air bag warning label requirement for infant seats. You ask whether a specific child seat design is compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, with regard to the placement of a required warning label. Judging from your description of the warning label, the photographs you provided, and the intended purpose of the warning label, we believe that the answer is no. Paragraph S5.5.2(k)(3) of FMVSS No. 213 specifies the warning label on a rear-facing child seat be located on the outer surface of the cushion or padding in or adjacent to the area where a childs head would rest, so that the label is plainly visible and easily readable. The rationale for the location of the label was set forth in the final rule establishing that requirement, which stated: The label can be either where the child's head rests or adjacent to that area. The purpose of the new location is to ensure that parents see the label each time they place the seat in a vehicle. 61 FR 60206, 60214 (November 27, 1996). As you know, when NHTSA issued the air bag warning label, it was the most important issue to communicate to consumers. Id. NHTSA required the label to be where the childs head rests or adjacent to that area to ensure that parents see the label each time they place the seat in a vehicle. Id. The warning is still highly important. By virtue of its being covered up by the removable cushioning pad, even if partially so, the warning is not plainly visible or easily readable as required by FMVSS No. 213. In your letter, you argue that previous interpretation letters can be distinguished from your clients situation because in the previous scenarios, there was a complete obstruction of the required labeling (see June 6, 2006 letter to Cristina M. Offenberg, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business that obscures the warning label by covering it with a car seat cover may be subject to penalties for violating 30122; January 3, 1991 letter to Tom Wiatrak, a pad covering information required by FMVSS No. 213 would be acceptable if the required information were permanently labeled on the pad and the information is visible when the seat is installed). We do not agree that a partial obstruction of the air bag warning label meets the standard when the warning is not plainly visible or easily readable. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:213 d.11/20/08 |
2008 |
ID: 08-000233asOpenU-Fill, LLC 175 Rock Rd. Glenn Rock, NJ 07452 Dear Mr. McAvey: This responds to your letter regarding the Fuel-Tool, an onboard gasoline refueling system you have developed. You ask us to evaluate your product with respect to our laws and regulations. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. We also investigate safety-related defects. In your letter, you describe the Fuel-Tool as an onboard gasoline refueling system. You state that the Fuel-Tool allows a user to refuel auxiliary equipment and vehicles directly from the host vehicles fuel tank. Your website (www.fueltool.com) shows the Fuel-Tool system consisting of a pump that is attached directly and permanently to the fuel line, and a hose and nozzle stored in the vehicle. Once the Fuel-Tool is activated, the fuel pump sends fuel through the fuel line at a rate of two gallons per minute through the nozzle and directly into the item the consumer wishes to refuel (for example, your website appears to show the refueling of an all terrain vehicle using the Fuel-Tool). You state that the Fuel-Tool will not be installed as original equipment on motor vehicles, but will be installed by a U-Fill certified technician or by the retail customer as an aftermarket item. We appreciate your effort to contact NHTSA about your product. However, as stated above, NHTSA is unable to evaluate individual products for compliance with the FMVSSs. We can provide some general information about our requirements. In addition, the Department of Transportations Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) administers regulations that relate to, among other things, the transportation and discharge of gasoline for fueling auxiliary equipment. For information on this subject, you may contact PHMSAs Office of Hazardous Materials Safety at (202) 366-0656. NHTSA Regulations There currently are no FMVSSs that directly apply to the Fuel-Tool as an aftermarket item of equipment. Our standard for Fuel System Integrity, FMVSS No. 301, applies to new complete motor vehicles, and not to aftermarket components that attach to the fuel system. While no FMVSS applies to the Fuel-Tool as an aftermarket item, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, a relevant statutory provision for determining the legality of modifications to motor vehicles is 49 U.S.C. 30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative. This section reads, in part: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter . If the Fuel-Tool were installed in the aftermarket by a U-Fill technician or any other manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business, the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30122 would apply. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, the commercial installer of the U-Fill would need to be sure that the installation of the U-Fill does not bring the vehicle out of compliance with the FMVSSs. As you correctly identified in your letter, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, would be the most likely standard impacted by the installation of the Fuel-Tool, since it limits fuel spillage and other failure modes in vehicle crashes. However, the commercial installer would also need to ensure that compliance with other FMVSSs is not adversely affected by installation of the Fuel-Tool. 49 U.S.C. 30122 does not apply to individual owners that are modifying their own vehicles. Thus, under NHTSAs regulations, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. You indicated that you intend to eventually partner with a vehicle manufacturer to include your product as an option on new vehicles. If the Fuel-Tool were added to a new vehicle, i.e., before the vehicle is sold for the first time to a consumer, then the vehicle must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 and all other FMVSSs with the Fuel-Tool installed. Also, as noted above, the vehicle manufacturer would have to ensure that the vehicle is free of safety-related defects. Other Considerations In addition to the requirements outlined above, individual States are free to establish requirements for vehicles used in the State, and may have laws that apply to the installation of a device such as the Fuel-Tool. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. Further, for information on private tort liability, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:301 d.11/20/08 |
2008 |
ID: 08-000497--16 Jan 09--rewriteOpenMr. Thomas Betzer Global Engineering Manager Keykert USA 46941 Liberty Drive Wixom, MI 48393 Dear Mr. Betzer: This responds to your email asking whether a certain theft deterring double-lock function will meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, as amended by a February 6, 2007 final rule. As discussed below, our answer is no. You did not describe the double-lock system in detail, but we assume for the purposes of this letter that the system has features described in the agencys April 10, 1987 letter to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW (copy enclosed). With that system, the driver locks the doors with a key. If the key is rotated to a certain point and removed, the vehicles burglar alarm is armed and the doors are double locked, such that after the plungers move downward, the outside handle, the inside handle, and the locking plunger cannot be used to unlock a door. When double locked, the doors can only be unlocked using a key in a front door lock.[1] In your letter, you stated that the double-lock function disables the interior unlocking mechanisms to prevent car theft by reaching into the vehicle to open a locked door. The February 6, 2007 final rule amended and updated requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and harmonized with the worlds first global technical regulation (GTR) for motor vehicles (72 FR 5385). (The effective date of the final rule is September 1, 2009; there are pending petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882.) The amended door locks requirements of the current standard are located in paragraphs S4.3 (door locks), S4.3.1 (rear side doors), and S4.3.2 (back doors) of the amended standard, as follows: S4.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which, when engaged, shall prevent operation of the exterior door handle or other exterior latch release control and which has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle. S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control. S4.3.2 Back doors. Each back door equipped with an interior door handle or other interior latch release control, shall be equipped with at least one locking device that meets the requirements of S4.3.1. These provisions changed some requirements of current FMVSS No. 206. The new S4.3 specifies that each door have an operating means and lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle, whereas current FMVSS No. 206 door locks requirements only specify that the door locking mechanism have an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. The current requirements read as follows: S4.1.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. S4.1.3.1 Side Front Door Locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. S4.1.3.2 Side Rear Door Locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative. With regard to these existing requirements which the 2007 final rule changed, NHTSA had interpreted current S4.1.3, S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 to permit a double-lock system such as the one you describe (April 10, 1987 letter to Kark-Heinz Ziwica of BMW). In the BMW letter, we explained that the permissibility of the system was dependent on whether the system interfered with an aspect of performance required by FMVSS No. 206. We interpreted the requirement for an interior operating means for the door locks to require only an operating means to engage the required door locking mechanisms, and not an operating means to disengage the locking mechanism. Therefore, NHTSA concluded that FMVSS No. 206 did not prohibit an additional locking device that negated the capability of the inside operating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system. Those FMVSS No. 206 requirements changed under the new door locks requirements set forth in the February 2007 final rule. Under the amended standard, each door will require an operating means and a lock release/engagement device (a device that both releases and engages the locking mechanism) located within the interior of the vehicle (new S4.3). A secondary locking device that negates the capability of the inside operating system for the door locks to disengage the locks will not meet the requirement in S4.3 that each door have a lock release device within the interior of the vehicle. NHTSAs intent to mandate locking devices with interior means to both release and engage the lock was made clear in the preambles to the February 6, 2007 GTR final rule and to the preceding December 15, 2004 notice of proposed rulemaking. In the preambles, the agency said that it sought to require interior door locks to be capable of being unlocked from the interior of the vehicle by means of a lock release device that has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device located in the interior of the vehicle. See 72 FR at 5394-5395; 69 FR 75020, 75027. Thus, the agency at S4.3 and S4.3.1 adopted requirements for a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle. After reviewing the preambles of the GTR rulemaking and the regulatory text of current and amended FMVSS No. 206, we have determined that a double-lock system such as that described in the BMW letter will no longer be permitted under the standard because it interferes with the interior lock release device of the door. Since neither the inside nor the outside door handle can open the door, it is presumed that the lock is engaged and that the interior lock release device was unable to unlock the door. Child Safety Locks Conversely, we interpret the amended FMVSS No. 206 to continue to permit child safety locks that only disable the interior latch release (door handle) of rear side doors. When such a child safety lock is engaged on a rear side door, the interior lock release/engagement device can continue to engage and release the door lock. In addition, when the door lock is released, the door can be opened by operating the exterior door handle even when the child safety lock is engaged. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:206 d.7/24/07 [1] We note that with your system, electronic unlocking via a key fob can also deactivate the double-lock function. |
2007 |
ID: 08-000763--26 Feb 08--rlsOpenMr. Jack Jay McCracken Assistant Secretary Cooper Tire and Rubber Company 701 Lima Avenue Findlay, OH 45840-2315 Dear Mr. McCracken: This responds to your letter concerning laser-etched[1] date codes in the tire identification number (TIN) required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles, and Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 574 (49 CFR Part 574), Tire identification and recordkeeping. You ask whether FMVSS No. 139 and Part 574 would permit laser-etched date codes in the TIN at a minimum depth of 0.010 inches. Based on the information you provided and the analysis below, the answer to your question is yes, as FMVSS No. 139 and 49 CFR Part 574 do not specify a minimum depth for laser-etched date codes. However, please note that the agency is considering addressing in an upcoming rulemaking whether a minimum depth should be required for laser-etched date codes. By way of background, your letter states that you currently use traditional molded date codes to comply with the TIN requirement, but that you are considering switching to laser etching for the date codes for both technician safety and time-saving reasons. You believe that a laser-etched date code at a depth of 0.010 inches is at least as legible as a traditional molded date code with a depth of 0.020 inches. Further, you note that a depth of 0.020 inches for laser etching may create an undesirable cosmetic effect for some whitewall tires, in that at this depth, the white layer of rubber inside the sidewall would sometimes show through in one or more of the date code numbers. Discussion FMVSS No. 139, at paragraph S5.5.1(b), states that each tire manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 must be labeled with the TIN required by 49 CFR Part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire. 49 CFR Part 574, at 574.5, states that the TIN must be permanently molded into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1. Figure 1 specifies at Note 1: Tire identification number shall be in Futura Bold, Modified Condensed or Gothic characters permanently molded (0.020 to 0.040) deep. Section 574.5 also states that: at the option of the manufacturer, the information contained in paragraph (d) of this section [the date code section of the TIN] may, instead of being permanently molded, be laser etched into or onto the sidewall in the location specified in Figure 1. The question you raise is whether a date code laser-etched in the location specified in Figure 1 may have a minimum depth of 0.010 inches. Our answer is yes. Section 574.5 states that molding must be done in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, but states for etching only that it must be done in the location specified in Figure 1. In addition, Note 1 of Figure 1, as written, specifies the 0.020-0.040 inch depth only for permanent molding. Because 574.5 and Note 1 do not clearly specify that laser etching must be to the same depth as molding, you may laser etch the date codes at a shallower depth than 0.020 inch. Keep in mind, however, that we believe a depth requirement for laser etching should be considered to ensure sufficient long-term legibility of the TIN and date code. We plan to address the issue in an upcoming rulemaking on Part 574. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:574 d.5/8/08 [1] You use the term engraved instead of etched. The regulation at issue, 49 CFR Part 574, uses the term etched. For purposes of this letter, we consider engraved and etched to be synonomous and will use the term etched for consistency with Part 574. |
2008 |
ID: 08-001245 belly padOpenMs. Diana D. Smith Belly Pad Buddies 1795 N. Fry Rd., #148 Katy, TX 77449 Dear Ms. Smith: This responds to your letter about a product you market called the Belly Pad Buddy, which you describe as a type of pad designed for use with an infant child restraint (infant seat) with a 5-point harness restraint. You ask for information about Federal and state requirements that apply to your product. According to your letter, the Belly Pad Buddy was designed to help prevent pinching caused by the 5-point harness buckle when securing the infant in the car seat carrier. Other benefits can be that it helps prevent against a hot buckle and provides a cushion to protect the infant from the hard buckle. The pad is attached to the infant seat by strapping a part of it around the infant seat crotch strap. The Belly Pad Buddy consists of a 4- by 6-inch pad that is about to 1 inches thick.[1] You state that the product is sold in the aftermarket for installation by the owner of the infant seat in his or her own vehicle. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Belly Pad Buddy. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS No. 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less." (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds.) The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pad that is used with a child restraint system. While no FMVSS applies to the Belly Pad Buddy, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, while it is unlikely that the Belly Pad Buddy would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. You state in your letter that you believe that the Belly Pad Buddy does not interfere with the infant seats buckle restraint system. Because we do not approve or certify products, we cannot agree or disagree with your assessment. Instead, we note for your consideration that FMVSS No. 213 requires specific levels of performance for infant seats as a system and also for seat webbing and buckles as components of the child restraint system, whose performance could be affected by aftermarket accessory pads. Further, an aftermarket pad inserted between the webbing and the child passenger could compress in a crash and degrade the ability of the belt system to properly restrain the infant in a crash. In addition, FMVSS No. 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for child restraints. Any person listed in 30122 who installs a Belly Pad Buddy must not make inoperative the flammability resistance of the child restraint system. The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. State or local jurisdictions might have their own requirements for products such as the Belly Pad Buddy. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:213 d.4/17/08 [1] This description is based on your letter and on a photograph of your product shown on your website: www.bellypadbuddies.com. |
2008 |
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.