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: 571.213-car seat hook-AllenOpen
Ms. Joan Allen P.O. Box 26315 Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Ms. Allen:
This responds to your May 17, 2013, letter asking about safety regulations for a device you call a car seat hook. You explain that the device is used to make it easier for a consumer to secure a toddlers car seat. You ask if the product has to be crashed tested. This letter explains the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that apply to your product. The device is not required to be crash tested.
We understand from your letter and the sample product you sent that the car seat hook is a plastic rod about 18 inches long, shaped into a U at one end, like a narrow umbrella handle. The car seat hook is intended to assist in attaching a forward-facing child restraint system to the vehicle seat using the lap/shoulder belt. Your website[1] explains that the car seat hook is to help people who have trouble reaching through the openings for the belt. The written instructions tell consumers to use the hook to grab the seat belt and pull it through the hole that is located in the back of the car seat.
By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not endorse any vehicles or items of equipment. Further, NHTSA does not approve or certify vehicles or equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.
There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to an accessory item like the car seat hook. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket accessories sold for child restraints, such as the car seat hook. NHTSA does not require you to crash test the car seat hook.
However, under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for any safety-related defects in your product. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the manufacturers product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.
We wish to point out that States have the authority to regulate the use of child restraints. Thus, we recommend that manufacturers check with the States to see if there are any requirements of which they should be aware. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure
Dated: 10/30/13 Ref: Standard No. 213 [1] www.mybabyscarseathook.com (Last accessed August 29, 2013) |
|
ID: 571.226--modified roof--RVIA--15-006086OpenMr. Richard Coon Recreation Vehicle Industry Association P.O. Box 2999 Reston, VA 20195-0999
Dear Mr. Coon: This responds to your letter asking about the meaning of the term modified roof in S3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, Ejection mitigation. The term is used in FMVSS No. 226 for purposes of determining the applicability of the standard, as modified roof vehicles are excluded from the standard (see S2, FMVSS No. 226). Your question relates to what you describe as light motorhomes weighing less than 10,000 pounds (approximately 2,000 manufactured each year, in the aggregate). You describe various ways the roofs of these vehicles are modified by final-stage manufacturers[1] and ask if the resulting vehicles are modified roof vehicles under FMVSS No. 226. FMVSS No. 226 sets forth the following definition[2] of modified roof. Modified roof means the replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose original roof has been removed, in part or in total, or a roof that has to be built over the driver's compartment in vehicles that did not have an original roof over the driver's compartment. Discussion We would like to begin our answer by stating that NHTSA evaluates possible violations of the FMVSSs according to the facts of each particular case. Thus, we are unable to agree with your view that there is a sweeping exclusion from FMVSS No. 226 for any motor vehicle roof where any part of the original structure has been removed by the final stage manufacturer (your emphasis). Such a pronouncement implies that merely cutting and plugging a tiny hole into the roof renders FMVSS No. 226 inapplicable, an implication with which we do not agree. NHTSA would assess whether modifications made to a vehicle roof are bona fide. That said, in your letter you describe specific types of roof modifications performed by final-stage manufacturers. You state: Small motorhome roof modifications ...range from a complete replacement of the original roof, to partial roof removals and replacement with reinforcing structure and/or additions such as vents with moveable covers, exhaust or air circulation fans, rigid or moveable skylights, satellite dish or television antennae assemblies and rooftop air conditioning units. Note that these a/c unitsthe most common source of partial roof removalsare not a part of the vehicular systems, are not tied into the vehicles climate control equipment and are intended to operate when the vehicle is stationary and functioning as temporary living quarters. In fact, all powered equipment installed during the roof modification process also requires the installation of wiring to connect the device to a power source, such as an electrical hookup at the camp site or a generator. This equipment, and the roof modifications required for their installation, is critical to the vehicles camping and outdoor recreation function. After considering the information you provide, we agree that vehicles with roofs modified in the manners you describe would be modified roof vehicles under FMVSS No. 226. It appears such modifications would be made in good faith and not merely to circumvent the application of the standard. Note, however, that the agency drafted FMVSS No. 226 to exclude modified roof vehicles because NHTSA was concerned about potential impacts of the standard on small entities, i.e., final-stage manufacturers and alterers, that may have to build out a roof or substantially affect the structure and design of the original ejection mitigation side air curtain system. We would like to urge small entities not to needlessly disconnect or otherwise make nonfunctional ejection mitigation systems that they encounter when producing their vehicles. If it is possible for them to modify the roof of vehicles that have an FMVSS No. 226 ejection mitigation system without negatively affecting the safety system, we encourage them to do so. In that way, the modified vehicles would continue to provide the ejection mitigation protection of FMVSS No. 226. Finally, NHTSA continues to evaluate the regulatory exception for modified roof vehicles to ensure that the highest possible levels of safety are achieved. It may be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the current exception through the rulemaking process if it appears that modifiers are needlessly making ejection mitigation systems nonfunctional. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel Dated: 3/22/16 Ref: Standard No. 226
[1] You state that RVIA represents manufacturers and component part suppliers of all recreation vehicles, including motorhomes (RVs). [2] Note that this definition differs slightly from the one you quoted in your letter. The definition you quoted was amended effective Oct. 9, 2013 (78 FR 55138, Sept. 9, 2013). |
2016 |
ID: 571.226--Pre-breaking glazing--Parker--17-001042OpenMr. George Parker 13488 Victory Gallop Way Gainesville, VA 20155 Dear Mr. Parker: This responds to your letter concerning the procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, Ejection mitigation, for testing side window glazing. Your first question asks if your understanding of the procedures for pre-breaking advanced laminated glazing is correct. As discussed below, we generally agree with your understanding, but we wish to correct a point. You next ask whether a transom section for ventilation that has no headform target locations is excluded from compliance testing. As discussed below, our answer is yes. Background The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued FMVSS No. 226 to reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants through side daylight openings (windows) in rollover crashes.[1] The standards performance requirements ensure that side windows employ ejection mitigation countermeasures in rollovers. To assess compliance, an 18-kilogram (40-pound) impactor is propelled from inside the tested vehicle toward the tested window at points around the windows perimeter, at two different speeds and time intervals. The ejection mitigation countermeasure must prevent the impactor from moving more than a specified distance beyond the plane of the opening. Manufacturers typically use side curtain air bag technologies and/or advanced glazing to meet FMVSS No. 226. If advanced glazing is used, different test procedures apply depending on whether the glazing is fixed in place or movable[2] and whether the glazing is used with side curtain air bag technology. FMVSS No. 226 sets forth the test conditions for the impactor test which assesses the expected performance of the ejection countermeasures in an actual rollover crash. FMVSS No. 226 includes a pre-breaking procedure that can cause the disintegration of tempered glazing or damage advanced glazing, thus duplicating the typical condition of glazing in real world rollover crashes. Question One You ask about the pre-breaking procedures of the standard (S5.4.1). You refer to the following statement in NHTSAs September 9, 2013 (78 FR 55138) response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 226: There is never a situation under any part of the standard in which glazing is left in place and unbroken. (78 FR at 55161, col. 2.) You ask: Does unbroken only mean the glazing is subject to the pre-breaking procedure regardless of the outcome of applying the procedure as opposed to actually broken, and that the displacement tests are then conducted with the glazing in place? Answer: We read your question as having several parts to it, so it may be helpful to restate it as follows: Does advanced glazing need to actually break when subjected to the pre-breaking procedure? Assuming it does not, is the advanced glazing (that has been subjected to the pre-breaking procedure) left in place for the impactor test? The answer to the first part of the restated question is no, under FMVSS No. 226s pre-breaking procedure (see S5.4), the glazing does not need to actually break in the procedure. S5.4.1.2(a) specifies that pressure is applied using a center punch device only once at each mark location, even if the glazing does not break or no hole results. While the procedure does not require the breakage of the glazing as the outcome of the procedure, as a practical matter, tempered glass will shatter and completely evacuate the opening during the procedure.[3] Advanced laminated glazing is not likely to shatter, but typically cracks at the locations of the center punch application. (Hereinafter, we refer to advanced laminated glazing that has undergone the pre-breaking procedure as conditioned glazing.) As to whether the conditioned glazing is left in place for the impactor tests, the answer depends on whether the glazing is fixed or movable. The high- and low-speed impactor tests are specified in S5.5(a) and (b) of FMVSS No. 226, respectively. For all applicable impactor tests at both test speeds, under S5.5, fixed conditioned glazing can always be left in place at the manufacturers option (see S5.4). However, for the low-speed test under S5.5(b)--which only applies if the vehicle has an ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in a rollover--if the glazing is movable, it is removed or fully retracted prior to testing. Question Two You ask for concurrence with your statement that if a side window has a transom section for ventilation for which there is no headform target locations that the transom section is [excluded] from the standard. We agree with your statement with an assumption. S4.2.1.3 of FMVSS No. 226 states: If a side daylight opening contains no target locations, the impact test of S4.2.1 is not performed on that opening. Side daylight opening is defined in S3 of the standard. If your transom section is a discrete side daylight opening that contains no target locations, the transom section is excluded from impactor testing. If it is not a discrete side daylight opening, the transom section could be part of the side daylight opening to which it is adjacent. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel Dated: 3/7/18 Ref: FMVSS No. 226 [1] 76 FR 3212, January 19, 2011. [2] Because many ejections occur through open side windows, under FMVSS No. 226, advanced glazing can only be used as a standalone countermeasure if the glazing is fixed in place (e.g., the glazing cannot be rolled down). Movable advanced glazing can be used in countermeasure designs, but the movable glazing must not be the sole means of meeting FMVSS No. 226. (See S4.2.1.1.) Thus, for a vehicle with movable advanced glazing, the glazing would likely be designed for use with an ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in a rollover (a side curtain air bag). [3] Since this outcome is effectively the same as removing or completely retracting the tempered glass from the opening, S5.4 of FMVSS No. 226s test procedure allows for removing or completely retracting the tempered glass in lieu of subjecting the glass to the pre-breaking procedure. |
2018 |
ID: 5716 filtersOpenMr. Larry A. Gaughan & Dear Messrs. Gaughan & Kim: This is in response to your e-mail and a phone conversation between Mr. Gaughan and Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, in which you ask if the cabin air filters manufactured by your company must meet the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. You supply the air filters to a vehicle manufacturer for installation in new vehicles. As explained below, the answer is no. You described the cabin air filters as designed to clean the air entering the cabin of the motor vehicle through the heating and air-conditioning vents. You stated that the filters are located either behind or under "the dash of the vehicle or in the engine compartment of the vehicle." FMVSS No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Section 4.1 of the standard lists the components in the vehicle occupant compartments that manufacturers must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of S4.3. The components listed in S4.1 are:
Cabin air filters are not listed in S4.1 of the standard. Thus, they are not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Please note that there are other requirements that could affect your product. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also has jurisdiction over defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your filters are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on Standard No. 302, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Chief Counsel |
2003 |
ID: 574- TIN spacing - Kumho - 16-004483OpenMr. Bruce Ainbinder Littleton Joyce Ughetta Park & Kelly LLP 4 Manhattanville Rd., Suite 202 Purchase, NY 10577 Dear Mr. Ainbinder: This letter responds to your request on behalf of Kumho Tire U.S.A., Inc. (Kumho) requesting clarification regarding the spacing requirement for the 13-symbol tire identification number (TIN) required by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register on April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19553) requiring all new plants (and, within 10 years, all existing tire plants) to mark tires with a 13-symbol TIN. You request clarification whether there must be spacing between the three groupings of symbols within the TIN, as shown in figures accompanying 49 CFR 574.5. As we made clear in the April 2015 final rule, no spacing between the grouping of symbols within the TIN is required. As you note in your letter, this issue was raised in comments submitted to the agency on the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding the April 2015 final rule. Two commenters suggested that NHTSA require spaces between the TINs three groupings of symbols. See 80 FR 19558. The agency did not adopt the suggestion, reasoning that such a spacing requirement would eliminate a cost-effective option to convert existing tire molds from then-existing TIN requirements to the new 13-symbol TIN requirements. Where spacing is required, such as between the certification symbol (if required) and the TIN itself, requirements are included in the regulatory text and/or reflected in Figure 1 to 49 CFR 574.5. There was no specification in the figures or in the regulatory text requiring spacing between the three groupings of symbols. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Dated: 2/27/17 Ref: Part 574 |
2017 |
ID: 576intp.etlOpenMs. Susan A. Longacre Dear Ms. Longacre: This is in response to your letter to this office requesting certain information concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") regulation on the subject of "record retention," designated as 49 CFR Part 576. Your original request was addressed to Ms. Heidi Coleman of this office under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). As Ms. Enid Rubenstein of my staff previously explained to you by telephone, we are treating your letter as a request for interpretation rather than a FOIA request because your questions ask the agency to interpret the meaning of certain provisions of the regulation, as well to provide you with copies of documents. I am answering your questions in the order that you presented them; and have also enclosed a copy of the full text of 49 CFR Part 576 for your information. Question 1. Have there ever been any "letters of interpretation" or requests for interpretation sent to NHTSA related to this part? We were able to locate five letters in which NHTSA's Chief Counsel has interpreted 49 CFR Part 576. I have enclosed copies of these letters with this response. For your information, NHTSA's interpretations are also available in electronic form in a searchable database located on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/. For future reference, the agency's Technical Information Services office ("TIS") also has copies of all legal interpretations of NHTSA regulations. You can obtain copies of these interpretations from TIS in person at 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5110, Washington, D.C. 20590 between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; and you may also request them in writing from TIS at the above address. Question 2: Does this requirement pertain to only records that relate to FMVSS compliance? The answer is no. The regulation requires retention of records that relate to possible defects related to motor vehicle safety as well as records that relate to noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 576.2 states that the purpose of the regulation is to preserve records that are needed "for the proper investigation, and adjudication or other disposition, of possible defects related to motor vehicle safety and instances of nonconformity to the motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations." [Emphasis added.] Section 576.6 uses the inclusive term "malfunctions that relate to motor vehicle safety," rather than "noncompliance" or "defect related to safety" to describe the subject matter of the records that are covered by the regulation. Section 576.8, in turn, sets forth the types of "malfunctions" referred to in 576.6, and makes clear that these include defects that relate to safety, as well as noncompliances with safety standards:
. . . [M]alfunctions that may be related to motor vehicle safety include, with respect to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any failure or malfunction beyond normal deterioration in use, or any failure of performance, or any flaw or unintended deviation from design specifications, that could in any reasonably foreseeable manner be a causative factor in, or aggravate, an accident or an injury to a person. Question 3: The requirement refers to all records relating to "possible defects." Does that mean that all developmental, material specifications, etc. must also be maintained? If not, what records over and above those relating to FMVSS compliance are required to be maintained? As stated above, in addition to records relating to noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, Part 576 requires retention of records relating to possible defects related to motor vehicle safety. See 49 CFR 576.2. However, the regulation does not require a manufacturer to retain the "developmental, material specifications" that you refer to, for either type of malfunction (i.e., safety-related defect or noncompliance). Neither Part 576 nor the preamble of any of the Federal Register notices surrounding its promulgation mention a requirement to retain documents relating to the design of the vehicle or to material or other specifications. The focus of the regulation is on records that either report or otherwise reflect the presence of a malfunction. Thus, 576.6 includes the following as records that a manufacturer must retain:
communications from vehicle users and memoranda of user complaints; reports and other documents . . . that are related to work performed under, or claims made under, warranties; service reports or similar documents . . . from dealers or manufacturer's field personnel; and any lists, compilations, analyses, or discussions of such malfunctions contained in internal or external correspondence of the manufacturer . . .. The preamble to NHTSA's first proposal to adopt Part 576 confirms that the focus of the agency's interest in promulgating this regulation was to ensure that manufacturers would preserve records that reflected the existence of malfunctions, and did not extend to records about product development, design, or material specifications:
Typically, the manufacturer is the main recipient of complaints of malfunctions by the vehicle owner. Many reports of malfunctions are processed through channels for the administration of vehicle warranties by manufacturers and their dealers. Manufacturers' field service representatives may also serve as collection points for information of this nature. It is to be expected that manufacturers compile analyses and lists of malfunction reports, with a view toward product improvement, removal of design weaknesses, and of course the remedying of safety-related defects. Since some defects are not revealed as such until months or years after the vehicle's manufacture, a determination by NHTSA of the proper disposition of a possible defect . . . may be seriously hindered if manufacturers do not retain these records. 39 Fed. Reg. 30048 (Aug. 20, 1974). In practice, manufacturers may retain other types of records that are outside the scope of Part 576. Although NHTSA may, and often does, make use of records such as those relating to design or material specifications when investigating possible safety-related defects or noncompliances, Part 576 does not require a manufacturer to retain them. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning Part 576, you may contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address or at 202-366-5263. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 581interpretationOpenMr. Kenneth M. Bush Dear Mr. Bush: This responds to your question of whether the front grille of a Suzuki passenger car qualifies as a bumper face bar component under 49 C.F.R. Part 581. The answer to your question is no, the front grille does not qualify as a component of the bumper face bar. The purpose of the bumper standard, as set forth under Section 581.2, is to reduce the physical damage to the front and rear ends of passenger motor vehicles from low speed collisions. To accomplish this purpose, Part 581 requires the vehicle to withstand prescribed pendulum and barrier tests. Vehicles must experience no damage to vehicle exterior surfaces, and only limited damage to the bumper face bar, and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Section 581.4 defines the bumper face bar as any component of the bumper system that contacts the impact ridge of the pendulum test device. See Figures 1 and 2 of Part 581. In an interpretive Federal Register notice that followed the publication of the rule, we addressed the application of the rule to bumper face bars and attached components. We explained that components must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they constitute components of the bumper system. We looked to the function of the component and recognized that some components could not qualify as components of the bumper system, even if contacted by the impact ridge of the pendulum or barrier. For example, "illumination devices, e.g., fog lamps and directional signals, are not associated with the bumper systems function and could not qualify as components of the bumper system, even if contacted by the pendulum test device or barrier." 43 Fed. Reg. 40229, 40230 (Sept. 11, 1978). However "other components could be considered components of the bumper system, depending on their application in a particular vehicle design." Id.For example a grille, which is generally associated with the body of the vehicle, "could perform a protective function as a component of a bumper system in a soft-face configuration, and could therefore qualify as a component of the bumper system." Id. After reviewing your submitted materials, it appears that the Suzuki front grille is not a component of the bumper system. First, the grille appears to be a separate part that can be installed and removed independent of the front bumper. It is not an integral part of the bumper system. Second, the grille does not appear to be associated with the bumper systems function, namely performing a protective function of reducing the physical damage to the vehicle. If you have any questions or concerns about this interpretation, please contact Raymond Woo at the Office of Chief Counsel at 202-366-5263. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:581 |
2004 |
ID: 5927CarrawayOpenMr. Bruce H. Carraway, Jr. Dear Mr. Carraway: This responds to your letter in which you follow-up on our earlier correspondence regarding belt minder systems. In your recent letter, you requested that the agency require vehicles to be equipped with a belt minder system which relies on a voice synthesizer to provide an audible alarm. As explained below, the agency does not have authority to require a system as you have described. In your letter, you requested that the agency require vehicles to be equipped with a belt-minder system developed by your company. You explained that the system would transmit a message through a vehicle’s audio system when a vehicle’s ignition is turned to the “on” position. Additionally, you stated that your system would use a voice synthesizer to state, “Thank you for fastening your seat belt.” You further explained that the duration of the message would be 4 or 5 seconds, and would repeat after a period of approximately 100 seconds. From your letter, it appears that the audible warning would sound regardless of whether the safety belt at the driver’s seat is buckled. I want first to thank you for your continued interest in motor vehicle safety. As explained in our previous letter to you, Congress has provided the agency with specific direction with respect to certain types of vehicle-based safety belt incentives. 49 U.S.C. § 30124 states that:
Under this provision, the agency is prohibited from establishing a standard based on the system you described. Specifically, the agency is prohibited from requiring a belt minder system that sounds after the initial 8-second period. As your system has a second audible alarm 100 seconds after a vehicle’s ignition is turned to the “on” position, a standard mandating your system would not comply with the congressional directive. While the agency is unable to mandate your system, we continue to encourage vehicle manufacturers to consider voluntarily introducing belt-minder systems and other innovative technologies that could increase seat belt use in ways acceptable to their customers. As explained in our previous letter to you, manufacturers may provide a voluntary audible signal that sounds after the 8-second period specified in S7.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, so long as they provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Further, i n a previous interpretation letter to MMC Services, we stated that an audible “voice” signal would be permitted under the standard (January 13, 1981; copy enclosed). However, we have concerns with a system such as you described, in which the audible signal operates regardless of whether an individual is buckled-up. Under your system, an occupant that has not fastened his/her safety belt would still be “thanked” for buckling-up. This may minimize the incentive to buckle-up that a belt-minder system is intended to provide. Further, it could both confuse and aggravate drivers and passengers because an occupant would receive the same signal no matter what action is taken. If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman Enclosures fef:208 d.11/12/04
|
2004 |
ID: 6319_IN_makeinopOpenJennifer H. Woods, Esq. Dear Ms. Woods: This responds to your letter in which you asked us to confirm your understanding of the Federal requirements regarding modifications made to a vehicle after it is first sold for retail sale. As explained below, a motor vehicle repair business must ensure that any such modification does not remove a vehicle from compliance with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). However, as you correctly stated, we do not require crash tests to demonstrate continued compliance. Generally, our standards apply to motor vehicle equipment as manufactured until the point of first retail sale. However, even after first retail sale a manufacturer, a distributor, dealer, or repair business cannot "knowingly make 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 motor vehicle safety standard" (49 U.S.C. 30122). In your letter and in a telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you explained that your client is seeking to have his Chevy Astro Van modified in order to accommodate adaptive driving equipment. In your phone conversation, you clarified that the vehicle to be modified has been purchased by your client at retail. You stated that the contemplated modification involves lowering the vehicle floor, and that you understand that this type of modification could remove the vehicle from compliance with FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity. You then asked the agency to confirm if engineering analysis could be used to demonstrate the vehicles continued compliance with FMVSS No. 301. You are correct that if any of the businesses listed in 30122 were to perform the modifications to your clients van, it would be prohibited from removing the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not prescribe the manner in which a modifier must ensure continued compliance with the applicable FMVSSs. A modifier may be able to contact the original manufacturer to determine that a particular modification would not violate the "make inoperative" provision. The modifier may also be able to lower the vehicle floorpursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, the modifier may be able to modify the vehicle pursuant to a protocol provided by a trade organization that has performed the necessary analysis. We believe that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification without compromising compliance with the FMVSS to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Also, a modifier may be able to use engineering analysis to determine whether a modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with applicable standards. I hope this addresses your concerns. I have also included a previous interpretation letter to Mr. Ron Smith (October 22, 1998) that provides further information regarding the issues raised in your inquiry. Please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosures |
2005 |
ID: 6320.jegOpenMr. John Lovstedt Dear Mr. Lovstedt: This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between Federal and State laws relating to kit cars. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. In your letter, you cited the example of a kit car in which everything except the engine and transmission is new. As you suggest in your letter, this would be considered a new motor vehicle under Federal law. The assembler would be the "manufacturer" of the vehicle. Under Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle. The manufacturer would also have to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS. You stated, however, that Hawaii State law allows a person to build, register, use, and sell for use on the public roads such a vehicle without certifying compliance with the FMVSS, and asked whether this portion of the law would be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30103. You also stated that you do not see how a person could ever "legally register" a car like this, yet people seem to be registering them in other states. While we decline to provide an opinion about the Hawaii law you cite, I will note that the issue of whether a kit car is considered to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle is a matter of Federal law, not State law. Thus, a person who manufactured a kit car that did not comply with the FMVSS and sold it, offered it for sale, or introduced it into interstate commerce would be in violation of Federal law, regardless of any State laws. The issue of whether the person could legally register the vehicle would be a matter of State law. However, even if the State law did permit such registration, the person would still be in violation of Federal law. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:VSA |
2003 |
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.