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: 30102ad_aerial_work_platformOpenMr. Mark A. Rangos Dear Mr. Rangos: This responds to your letter of December 8, 2003, concerning requirements for trailer-mounted aerial work platforms that are being developed by JLG Industries, Inc. (JLG), which are used primarily to lift personnel and materials to elevated work locations in industrial or construction environments. You state that the aerial work platform structure is mounted upon a trailer chassis for the sole purpose of portability, to move the machine from one job site to another to perform its primary function as an aerial work platform. In a normal application, the machine is towed to a job site and set up for utilization. To be prepared for use, the machine must be maneuvered into position in proximity to the work location. Once in position, the stabilizers are deployed to stabilize and level the chassis. You also state that the machine may remain on the job site for "hours, days, months, or extended periods." Lastly, you claim that towing the machine upon the streets, roads, or highways is incidental to its use on job sites and performed only for the purpose of transfer to work locations. You asked us to confirm your interpretation that this machine would not be considered a "motor vehicle" as specified under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. For the reasons that follow, we confirm your understanding. By way of background, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as:
49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it must comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then it need not comply with the agencys safety standards. Whether the agency will consider construction equipment, such as an aerial work platform structure that is mounted upon a trailer chassis, to be a motor vehicle depends upon its use. It is the agencys position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, in those cases where certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways, the agency has determined such equipment to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than "incidental." Your letter states that the aerial work platform structure is mounted upon a trailer chassis and may be towed from jobsite to jobsite. Your letter goes on to state that the duration of the aerial work platform structures use on jobsites is variable, ranging from "hours, days, months, or extended periods." Based upon the information and literature you have provided, it does not appear that your aerial work platform structures are "motor vehicles" as that term is defined in the Safety Act. This conclusion is based upon the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to travel between jobsites. Accordingly, your aerial work platform structures would not be subject to the FMVSS. However, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that the aerial work platform structures use the road more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding NHTSAs safety standards, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:VSA |
2004 |
ID: 3010yyOpen Mr. Norman H. Dankert Dear Mr. Dankert: This responds to your letter of May 14, l99l, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 as it relates to your patent. We appreciate that you included a copy of the patent so that we might have a better understanding of your invention. As you have explained it, "a sensor that responds to the movement of the accelerator pedal serves to maintain the activation initiated by the brake pedal until the accelerator pedal is depressed, regardless of any speed." In short, when the center highmounted stop lamp is activated by application of the brake pedal, your device ensures that the lamp remains activated when the foot is removed from the brake pedal until such time as the accelerator is again depressed. The Summary of the Invention in the patent indicates that the basic kit includes a logic circuit unit connecting the accelerator, high mounted stop lamp, and back up lamp (so that when the vehicle is placed in reverse gear, the center lamp, if on, remains on). Optionally, the unit can connect the right and left turn signal lamps (which the Operation of the System in the patent indicates "flashes that 'third' light when either turn signal is operated . . . ." You believe that your system complies with Standard No. l08, specifically, paragraph S4.5.4 (now S5.5.4) which states "The high-mounted stop lamp on a passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." I regret that we must disagree with you. The "only" activation of the center lamp permitted by Standard No. l08 is "upon application of the service brakes." If the service brakes ceased to be applied, the lamp must be deactivated. To allow the center lamp to remain activated when the service brakes are no longer applied would be to allow its activation under conditions other than the application of the service brakes. The stop lamps on the vehicle serve a clearly defined purpose: to indicate the intention of the driver to stop the vehicle, or to diminish its speed, through braking. Paragraph S5.5.4 ensures that the stop lamps will not be used at times other than braking. While use of the stop lamp to indicate a vehicle stopped by the road may be an intuitively attractive idea, we note that there is already a safety system on a vehicle, the hazard warning flasher system, that is specifically intended to be used for this purpose. We also note that the invention would appear to be prohibited by paragraph S5.1.3 (formerly S4.1.3) of Standard No. l08. This prohibits the installation of any item of motor vehicle equipment that may impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We deem effectiveness impaired when the intended function of a lamp is lessened, either by outright interference with the lamp's performance, or by the introduction of factors that may create confusion as to the meaning of the signal sent by the lamp. We appreciate the fact that you believe your invention will contribute to motor vehicle safety by indicating the presence of a car that has been put into reverse gear. However, we believe that your invention would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp. In the reverse mode, the simultaneous activation of the center stop lamp and the backup lamp could create at least momentary confusion as to whether the driver was braking, had braked, or was reversing direction. The option of the invention that flashes the center lamps with the turn signal lamps is prohibited by paragraph S5.5.10(d) which, in essence, requires all stop lamps to be steady burning in use. For the foregoing reasons, Standard No. l08 does not allow your invention to be used as original equipment on passenger cars. Nor could it be retrofitted on passenger cars already in use that are equipped with the center lamp. Federal law, in essence, prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, from rendering a safety system wholly or partially noncompliant. As noted above, your invention would have this effect on the center lamp or the backup lamp. We would also caution against use of your device in conjunction with aftermarket high-mounted stop lamps intended for retrofit on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. l08 to be equipped with them (i.e., passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, light trucks, and vans manufactured before September 1, l992). In our opinion, the reasons expressed in the last two sentences of the preceding paragraph would continue to apply to the backup lamp system. Even if permitted under Federal law, the laws of the individual States where an invention is sold may prohibit such a device. We are not in a position to advise on the acceptability of inventions under States laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:VSA#l08 d:6/3/9l |
2009 |
ID: 3011yyOpen Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki Dear Mr. Dembecki: This responds to your letter of April 24, 1991, commenting on my letter to you of April 8. In response to your request to review and comment on your video tape of your device, I asked our research and development office to review it. They indicated that although the device has some intuitive appeal, there is no technical basis to show that it would reduce accidents. In fact, our agency sponsored a field test of a similar system that flashed the center highmounted stop lamp. We found no significant difference in accident rates compared to a steady-burning signal. Attached is the abstract page of this study for your information. In closing, I note your comment that "My l99l Oldsmobile was retrofitted within l5 minutes" with the module causing the center high mounted stop lamp to flash. Since you did not say that you had performed the retrofit, we assume that it "was retrofitted" by another person. As I advised you on April 8, the center lamp must be steady-burning. Further, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (specifically Title l5, United States Code, Section 1397(a)(2)(A)) forbids a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard, i.e., that converts the steady-burning center lamp into a flashing one. However, the prohibition does not apply to individual owners of vehicles if they are not "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" capable of performing the modification themselves. Sincerely
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure /NCC-01:ZTVinson:amb:62992:5/2/91:OCC# 5898, WANG# 5427o NCC-20 Subj/Chron ZTV, NRD ref:l08 d:5/23/9l |
2009 |
ID: 30122 - Make inoperative - Alan Nappier april 14OpenMr. Alan Nappier Earl Stewart Toyota 1215 U.S. Highway 1 Lake Park, FL 33403 Dear Mr. Nappier: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law requires repair shops to repair vehicles using only parts provided by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and not aftermarket parts. You enclosed a December 2010 collision repair information bulletin from Toyota which states that repairing a vehicle using OEM parts and procedures can help return Toyota vehicles to pre-loss condition following a collision. The bulletin states that Toyota vehicles are engineered and manufactured as an integrated assembly of carefully designed and manufactured parts and that Toyota does not recommend the use of alternative parts for the repair of Toyota vehicles. I understand, from telephone conversations you had with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, that you support the idea of using OEM parts. You ask: If the vehicle manufacturer states that the exterior sheetmetal [sic] of an automobile is an integral part of the Supplemental Restraint System and I install untested aftermarket sheetmetal provided by a non-OEM manufacturer (aftermarket), am I, as a repair business, in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 [make inoperative provision]? As explained below, we recommend following the vehicle manufacturers advice about the repair. However, the short answer to your specific question is no. When repairing a used vehicle, it does not violate 30122 on its face for you to use aftermarket parts in the repair of the vehicle. Background: Safety Act The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act; 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue an array of FMVSSs for new vehicles and certain equipment items. Section 30112(a)(1) of the Safety Act specifies that, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title. As applied to your inquiry, because of this statutory requirement, no person can legally sell or offer for sale a new vehicle that had been repaired if the new vehicle does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. However, once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the FMVSSs. This is because 30112(b)(1) of the Safety Act provides that the prohibitions in 30112(a) do not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment in good faith other than for resale. After the first purchase of a vehicle, the provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in 30122 of the Safety Act. That section provides, in relevant 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. Discussion The answer to your question depends in part on when the repair is made. New vehicle: In the case of a repair of a new vehicle prior to its delivery to the first consumer purchaser, it is our view that, if the vehicle manufacturer recommends that only an OEM part should be used, the repair shop[1] must use the OEM part or contact the manufacturer to get its concurrence that the vehicle will meet the FMVSSs with the non-OEM part. Without such concurrence, if the repair results in the new vehicle not complying with the FMVSSs, the repair shop using the aftermarket part could be liable for violating 30112(a)(1) and 30122 of the Safety Act. Used vehicle: In the case of a repair of a used vehicle, use of aftermarket parts in the repair of that vehicle is not prohibited per se by 30122.[2] Use of an aftermarket part is permitted by Federal law as long as the repair shop does not knowingly make inoperative the compliance of a required safety system. Please note, however, the following about the knowingly aspect of 30122. An entity does not need to have actual knowledge that a device or element of design would be made inoperative by the entitys modification of a vehicle or item of equipment in order for that modification to violate 30122. A violation may occur if the entity should have known that a device or element of design would be made inoperative by the entitys modification. Accordingly, the agency will assess whether the entity exercised reasonable judgment in undertaking the modification and reasonable skill in implementing it. Even if the entity claimed that it did not know that a device or element of design would be made inoperative by the entitys modification, NHTSA will conduct such an assessment to determine whether the entity should have known that the device or element of design would be made inoperative. The agency will pursue such cases under appropriate circumstances. Keep in mind also that 30122 does not require repair shops to restore safety systems damaged in a collision to a new or pre-crash condition.[3] Instead, under 30122, when any repair to a vehicle is completed, the vehicle must be returned to the customer with the safety systems capable of functioning at least as well as they were able to when the vehicle was received by the repair shop.[4] We emphasize that some of our safety standards apply to new equipment items, both OEM and replacement equipment. For example, we have FMVSSs applying to lamps and reflectors, tires, windows and windshields, brake hoses, and seat belt assemblies. If your repair involves using new equipment items that are covered by an equipment FMVSS, under 30112(a)(1) of the Safety Act, the equipment must be certified as meeting the FMVSS. In addition, NHTSA has the authority to pursue any apparent safety problems with aftermarket parts under the defect provisions of the Safety Act. If evidence demonstrated that the aftermarket part presented an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, NHTSA could order the manufacturer of the equipment to remedy the defect free of charge. Persons aware of an apparent defect can report it to NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation at https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/. In closing, please note that the above interpretation has no bearing on contractual agreements between a repair shop and a dealer and/or the vehicle manufacturer to undertake repairs in a certain manner or to use certain parts. Moreover, States may have relevant laws or regulations governing motor vehicle repair. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 4/17/15 Ref: 49 USC Sec. 30122
[1] For purposes of this letter, we include in this term repair shop all the entities listed in 30122. [2] The Conference report on the make inoperative provision states: It is not the purpose of this amendment to limit in any way the use of independent aftermarket repair and service parts in the repair or replacement of components incorporated in the vehicle at the time of manufacture pursuant to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. [3] See, e.g., http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/aiam/aiam4681.html, letter to Linda L. Conrad, January 19, 1990. [4] Nonetheless, NHTSA strongly encourages repair shops to restore functionality to safety systems to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide crash protection for occupants during the life of the vehicle. |
2015 |
ID: 3012yyOpen Mr. Masaharu Morino Dear Mr. Morino: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR 571.211). In your letter, you enclosed two samples of "spinner" hubcaps, a product sheet describing several different designs of spinner hubcaps, and a letter from the New York Area Director of the U.S. Customs Service regarding spinner hubcaps. You asked whether these "spinner" hubcaps may legally be imported into this country from Taiwan. The answer is no. Spinner hubcaps may not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States, nor may they legally be imported into the United States. I have enclosed copies of this agency's March 16, 1988 letter to Representative Terry L. Bruce, a May 13, 1987 letter to Representative William E. Dannemeyer, and a November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. These letters reaffirmed past interpretations stating that spinner hubcaps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hubcaps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added.). We would consider each sale or offer for sale of spinner hubcaps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000. In your letter, you stated that some spinner hubcaps are currently being manufactured in the U. S. Thank you for alerting us to this situation. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action. I have also sent a copy of this letter to the Area Director of Customs for the New York Seaport. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures cc: Area Director of Customs New York Seaport New York, New York 10048 re: CLA-2-87:S:N:N1:101 835326 /ref: 211 d:6/4/9l |
2009 |
ID: 3036yyOpen Mr. Stephen Mamakas Dear Mr. Mamakas: In a telephone conversation with Stephen Kratzke of my staff, you asked for a clarification of my May 13, 1991 letter to you. My May 13 letter explained that Federal law would not affect any plans to repair air bags, but that a host of safety concerns and potential product liability issues under State law would arise in connection with any planned operation to repair air bags. You explained in your telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke that the last paragraph of my May 13 letter to you suggests that I did not fully understand your company's plans. In that last paragraph, I referred to repacking a deployed air bag. In your telephone conversation, you explained that your company would not reuse any used equipment. Instead, you plan on installing the new air bags and new sensors recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. After your company completes its work on the vehicle, you are prepared to certify that the air bag will work as intended by the vehicle manufacturer. You asked how this difference would change the answer in my May 13 letter. This new information would not affect my previous advice that Federal law does not affect your planned repair operations. However, the safety concerns I expressed in my previous letter would be addressed if your company's repairs used only the replacement parts for the air bag system recommended by the vehicle manufacturer and installed those parts in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's instructions. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:208#VSA d:6/ll/9l |
1970 |
ID: 3037yyOpen Mr. Danny J. Pugh Dear Mr. Pugh: This responds to your letter of April 15, 1991 regarding requirements for safety belts and door hardware in the prisoner area of police vehicles. Specifically, you asked if police vehicles are required to have seatbelts for prisoners, and if so, what type. You also asked if these vehicles are required to meet the door hardware requirements of Standard No. 206 for rear and side doors. All new vehicles, including police vehicles, are required to comply with all safety standards applicable to their type. Therefore, police vehicles, unless they are buses, are required to have safety belts at all designated seating positions when they are sold to the customer. Our December 13, 1990 letter to you regarding van conversions summarizes what type of safety belts are required depending on the seating position and vehicle type. In addition, police vehicles are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 206, if the vehicle is classified as a passenger car, a multipurpose passenger vehicle or a truck. You should note, however, that the requirements of Standard No. 206 do not apply to back doors, including car hatchbacks, van rear doors, and pickup truck tailgates. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:206#207#208#210 d:6/l0/9l |
1970 |
ID: 3038yyOpen Ms. Rosemary Dunlap Dear Ms. Dunlap: This responds to your letter concerning bills under consideration by a number of states which would require disclosure concerning safety features in light trucks and vans and bumper strength. You stated that there is considerable debate about whether such bills would be preempted by Federal law, and noted that opponents have represented that a NHTSA spokesperson indicated that the states are preempted in this area. You stated that you have been unable to locate this statement, and asked whether NHTSA has an official opinion regarding Federal preemption and disclosure. I believe that the statement you refer to was made by NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, Barry Felrice, at the July l990 NHTSA Public/Industry Meeting. Mr. Felrice was responding to a question from the Center for Auto Safety. I have enclosed a copy of the relevant portion of the transcript for that meeting and the question. As you can see from the transcript, Mr. Felrice did not say that states are necessarily preempted from establishing information disclosure requirements. In order to provide an opinion as whether a particular bill would be preempted, I would need to review the specific language of the bill. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure /ref: VSA d:6/l0/9l |
1970 |
ID: 3039yyOpen Mr. Michael L. Harmon Dear Mr. Harmon: This responds to your letter asking whether Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, permits the installation of a built-in child restraint system (i.e., a child restraint system that is an integral part of the vehicle) in a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and if so, what requirements apply. As discussed below, a child restraint system built into an MPV would fall within the definition of "child restraint system" in Standard No. 213 and would therefore have to comply with all the provisions of the standard that are generally applicable to child restraint systems. Since such a restraint would not be portable, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, by its own terms, or those of the compliance test procedure for that requirement, specifically applicable to "add-on child restraint systems" only. Since it would be built into an MPV instead of a passenger car, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, for the same reasons, specifically applicable to "built-in child restraint systems" only. The following sections of Standard No. 213 contain requirements that would apply to a child restraint built into an MPV: S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). The principle requirements of the standard that would not apply are those in S5.l.l relating to dynamic performance. In view of the importance of the dynamic performance requirements for ensuring the safety of child restraint systems, we intend to begin rulemaking to apply those requirements to all built-in systems, not just to those installed in passenger cars. In the meantime, we suggest that manufacturers of such systems for MPVs carefully consider whether the systems provide protection comparable to that provided by built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars. You should also be aware that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1381-l431) imposes responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety-related defects. Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If the manufacturer or the agency determines that a safety-related defect (or noncompliance with an FMVSS) exists, the manufacturer is obligated under 151 et seq. of the Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Legal Analysis Standard No. 2l3 applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft. See section S3. The term "child restraint system" is defined as "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 50 pounds or less." See section S4. A child restraint system that is an integral part of an MPV would come within this definition. Some of Standard No. 2l3's requirements apply generally to "child restraint systems," i.e., without regard to whether a child restraint system is built-in or add-on or whether, if it is built-in, it is installed in a car or other type of vehicle. Since a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV comes within the definition of "child restraint system," it is required to meet all such requirements unless excepted. The following sections of Standard 213 contain requirements which apply generally to "child restraint systems": S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). In a number of instances, however, particularly with respect to dynamic performance, Standard No. 2l3 either specifies separate requirements for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems," or provides a test procedure for these two types of child restraint systems only. The standard defines "add-on child restraint system" without respect to the type of vehicle to which it might be added, i.e., as "any portable child restraint system." The term "built-in child restraint system" is defined more restrictively, as "any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car." (Emphasis added.) A child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV does not come within either of these definitions, since such a restraint is neither portable nor a part of a passenger car. Therefore, Standard No. 2l3's requirements for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems," do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. Similarly, those requirements for which the standard specifies a test procedure for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems" only do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:213 d:6/l2/9l |
1970 |
ID: 3040yyOpen AIR MAIL Mr. Andreas Geis Robert Bosch GMBH Automotive Division K4/EWM13 Postfach 1163 W-7580 Buehl Germany Dear Mr. Geis: This responds to your letter asking how a vehicle should be loaded when determining compliance with Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You suggested that the vehicle's loading state could influence the position and size of the vision areas. As explained below, a vehicle must comply with the vision area requirements in Standard No. 104 under each and every loading condition between and including unloaded and loaded to the maximum recommended weight. Standard No. 104 does not specify a loading condition for the development of vision areas, nor does SAE Recommended Practice J903a (May 1966), presently incorporated by reference into the Standard. Furthermore, there is no mention of the vehicle loading condition in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 104. Since no loading condition is specified in the standard, the question arises whether the absence of loading conditions means that a vehicle complies with Standard No. 104 if it complies with the vision area requirements at any single loading condition between unloaded and fully loaded or whether the vehicle must comply with the vision area requirements at every loading condition between unloaded and fully loaded. NHTSA has recently discussed this issue at length in an October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc. (copy enclosed). As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions can only be overcome if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions. Applying this test to the vision area requirements in Standard No. 104, we begin with the presumption that the vision area requirements must be met under all loading conditions. We must then examine the standard as a whole and its purposes to see if there are any indications of an intention to limit Standard No. 104 to a particular loading condition or conditions. Nothing in the language of Standard No. 104 suggests an intention to limit the standard to a particular vehicle loading condition. In fact, there is some indication in the language of the standard that it's requirements are intended to be met irrespective of loading condition (see sections S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3). Moreover, the purpose of the standard, to ensure driver visibility by requiring wiper systems to clear a specific portion of the windshield, is only served if the wiper system functions adequately at all loading conditions. Therefore, since the language and purpose of Standard No. 104 indicate no intention to limit the standard's requirements to a particular vehicle loading condition, the presumption that a wiper system must comply at all loading conditions stands. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:104 d:6/l8/9l |
1970 |
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.