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: aiam2733OpenMr. Takashi Shimoda, Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd., 1118, Sazuchi, Bessho, Himeji, Japan; Mr. Takashi Shimoda Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co. Ltd. 1118 Sazuchi Bessho Himeji Japan; Dear Mr. Shimoda: This responds to your letter dated November 29, 1977, asking about th procedures for obtaining approval of hydraulic brake hoses. Your company is altering the labeling on some of its hose and asks whether the hose must be retested and whether notice of the changes must be given.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no approve in advance motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. It is up to manufacturers to certify that their products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations. The NHTSA conducts compliance testing for purposes of enforcement.; It is, therefore, up to your company to decide whether to test its hos according to the procedures specified in Safety Standard No. 106, *Brake Hoses*. The NHTSA only requires that you determine in the exercise of due care that the hose meets all requirements specified in the standard. Further, you do not have to give the NHTSA notice when you change the labeling information on your hose, unless you change the designation identifying your company. In that case, the new designation would have to be filed with the NHTSA according to the specifications of paragraph S5.2.2(b) of Standard 106.; You will have to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicl Administrators directly to determine their requirements for approval and notification following your labeling changes.; Please contact me if our office can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3821OpenMr. Leslie R. Ablondi, Pleasant Valley Corporate Center, Suite 800, 2024 Arkansas Valley Drive, Little Rock, AR 72212- 4237; Mr. Leslie R. Ablondi Pleasant Valley Corporate Center Suite 800 2024 Arkansas Valley Drive Little Rock AR 72212- 4237; Dear Mr. Ablondi: This responds to your March 16, 1984 letter regarding the applicabilit of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111 to an aftermarket rearview mirror which one of your clients proposes to market. This mirror would be attached to the original equipment inside mirror stalk in such a way that the view through the OEM mirror is unimpaired. Your client's mirror would permit the driver to view children in the rear seat of the vehicle.; FMVSS 111 (see 49 C.F.R. 571.111, copy enclosed) is directly applicabl to new motor vehicles only. However, that standard may apply indirectly to aftermarket mirrors through the operation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). The latter provision prohibits any motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative any 'device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' Thus, the installation of a replacement or even a supplemental rearview mirror in a motor vehicle could be unlawful if that installation resulted in a mirror system which did not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 111.; Based on your description of your client's mirror, it does not appea that the aftermarket installation of that mirror would be prohibited under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), since the operation of the OEM mirror system is unaffected by the addition of the aftermarket mirror.; If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5019OpenMr. Frank J. Sonzala Senior Vice President International Transquip Industries, Inc. 6131 Brookhill Drive Houston, Texas 77087-1131; Mr. Frank J. Sonzala Senior Vice President International Transquip Industries Inc. 6131 Brookhill Drive Houston Texas 77087-1131; Dear Mr. Sonzala: Thank you for your letter regarding Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Your company is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling your product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. I am pleased to provide you the following information. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI. The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (you use the term 'original equipment manufacturers') relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with 'any single leakage-type failure' of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage-type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired. For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, IT would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. Your letter states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. You argue that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting your position. After reviewing this matter, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm wit a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm. As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with any single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaghragm. The usage of the term 'any,' when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically designed at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing. We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure. You also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failure in a vehicle's brake system. We hope that this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam2226OpenMr. James C. Murphy, Assistant Vice President, National Association of Independent Insurers, 2600 River Road, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; Mr. James C. Murphy Assistant Vice President National Association of Independent Insurers 2600 River Road Des Plaines Illinois 60018; Dear Mr. Murphy: This is in response to your letter of February 17, 1976, in which yo asked that we reconsider our opinion of January 13 that any State laws regulating the content of vehicle identifications numbers (VIN's) would be preempted by Standard No. 115. Your reason was that the lack of standardization of VIN's caused many problems for insurance companies, State licensing agencies, and traffic enforcement agencies.; I think you might have misunderstood our intention concerning VIN's W agree that non-standardization of them is costly to all concerned, and we are working actively to promulgate a standardizing amendment to Standard 115. We are concerned, moreover, that if the States do not act in a uniform manner in laying down requirements for manufacturers, they might impose severe and unnecessary costs on them (and the public). This, of course, was the reason why Congress inserted the preemption provisions in the Vehicle Safety Act in the first place.; We want very much to have a system that applies not only to all State and all manufacturers, but to all the countries of the world, so that vehicles may move freely without danger of running afoul of identification standards. We have been working closely for several years with the International Standards Organization and the Society of Automotive Engineers to arrive at an acceptable world-wide uniform system. Our development work is finished now, and we expect to be issuing a proposal shortly for such a uniform system. We will appreciate your interest and your help in finalizing our standard in this area.; Sincerely. James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam5449OpenAlbert W. Unrath, Sr., President Albert W. Unrath, Inc. P.O. Box 631 Colmar, PA 18915 Dear Mr. Unrath:; Albert W. Unrath Sr. President Albert W. Unrath Inc. P.O. Box 631 Colmar PA 18915 Dear Mr. Unrath:; "This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA' regulations apply to your company's plans to refurbish used vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that after refurbishing, the vehicles will have lower gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs). You wish to know whether you could add a label showing the lower GVWR to the vehicles' original certification label (which you refer to as the 'original Vin Plate'). As explained below, NHTSA does not require the supplementary label on a refurbished--and not newly manufactured--used vehicle. We would, however, encourage you to add the label on the refurbished vehicles, since the label would provide important safety information to the vehicle operator. On the other hand, the modifications you make to the vehicle could be so extensive that the resulting vehicle is considered 'new' under our regulations. If the vehicle is a new vehicle, you must certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), and include on your certification label the new GVWR of the vehicle. Based on the information you provided, the vehicles you are refurbishing are 'trucks' under section 571.3 of our regulations. Section 571.3 defines a 'truck' as a motor vehicle with motive power 'designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' You provided two photographs of the vehicles after they have been refurbished. Your photographs show the refurbished vehicles as carrying 4' x 8' 'Advanced Warning Flashing Arrow' signs on flat beds. Since your vehicles are designed for transporting property or special purpose equipment, the vehicles are 'trucks' under 571.3. You describe your refurbishing process in your letter. You state that you will take a used truck with a GVWR of 45,000 or 80,000 pounds (lbs.), 'scrap' the body, and check remaining truck parts such as the subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, and suspension. You will repair and replace those parts, as needed. Next, you will clean and paint the frame and running gear, and add a new support frame and 'attenuator mounting hardware with braces.' After the vehicle is refurbished, its GVWR will be approximately 25,500 lbs. As a general rule, NHTSA has no requirements for 'used' vehicles. Whether a vehicle is considered new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle that was previously registered for use on the public roads to be a 'used' vehicle and therefore not subject to the FMVSS's. When a modified chassis is being used in the refurbishment, NHTSA has a regulation (49 CFR section 571.7(e)) for determining when the modifications to the used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the FMVSS's. Section 571.7(e) states: When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . ., unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. It does not appear that you plan to add a new engine, transmission, or drive axle to each refurbished truck. If you leave the requisite components specified in section 571.7(e) in place from the previous vehicle, we would consider the vehicle you produce to be a used vehicle. However, please keep in mind that you would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. section 30122(b), which provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . This means that the refurbished truck must continue to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification, such as those for braking, lighting and safety belt systems. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. You ask whether, after refurbishing the used truck, your company may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to reflect the lower GVWR. Since NHTSA generally does not regulate used vehicles, we do not require or prohibit the addition of a supplementary GVWR label. However, we would encourage you to add the supplementary GVWR label to the vehicle. As you note, in an interpretation letter of May 24, 1993 to the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), NHTSA recognized that certain modifications that might be made to a used vehicle (e.g., adding or deleting an axle) could make the originally assigned GVWR inappropriate for the vehicle as modified. In the letter to the AABA, NHTSA stated that although it is not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in these situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle. Similarly, in your case, since the GVWR of the refurbished trucks would be much lower than that indicated on the certification label, we believe it would be appropriate for your company to add a label to the trucks which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the refurbished truck. As noted at the beginning of this letter, it is possible that your modifications could result in a 'new' vehicle. You indicate that, if needed, you could replace the vehicle's subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, suspension, and/or support frame. If you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the original vehicle and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable FMVSS's in effect on the date of the remanufacture of the new vehicle. You also asked that NHTSA 'approve' your proposed operations. NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' refurbishing operations. Under our regulations, manufacturers of new vehicles 'self-certify' that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Likewise, businesses refurbishing used vehicles must assure themselves that the resulting vehicle continues to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification. NHTSA can examine the refurbisher's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2676OpenMs. Gail Burnette, Koons Leasing Inc., 30 Hillwood Avenue, Falls Church, VA 22046; Ms. Gail Burnette Koons Leasing Inc. 30 Hillwood Avenue Falls Church VA 22046; Dear Ms. Burnette: This responds to your September 12, 1977, telephone request to Roge Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the new Federal school bus safety standards to buses used to transport children to and from day care centers.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha previously determined that day care center operators may not have been aware that their buses would fall within the ambit of the new standards. Therefore, the NHTSA has temporarily exempted these buses from the requirements. The agency is considering, however, extension of the standards to buses operated by these facilities. I am enclosing a letter in which the agency has detailed its reasons for the temporary exclusion of day care center buses from the new school bus safety standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1959OpenMr. 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: aiam3964OpenFrederick 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: aiam4608OpenMr. 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: aiam3437OpenMr. 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 |
|
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.