NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam4373OpenMs. Laurie J. Schonauer, Bethell Company, P.O. Box 191, Colton, CA 92324-0087; Ms. Laurie J. Schonauer Bethell Company P.O. Box 191 Colton CA 92324-0087; Dear Ms. Schonauer: Your letter of May 14, 1987, addressed to the office of Vehicle Safet Standards, was referred to me for reply. Along with your letter, you sent marketing literature, and samples of your product, a device you are marketing under the name 'Insta-cone.' Your literature indicates your intention to market this device principally as an emergency traffic warning device.; The product is made of bright orange corrugated paper and has thre connected triangular faces. You shipped your product folded along the legs of the triangles, and packaged in a clear paper wrapper. A user unfolds your device, and connects tabs and slots along the legs of the triangles to form a pyramid. At the base of two triangles that form the pyramid is a long tab with covered adhesive strips. According to your literature, a user assembles your product, uncovers the adhesive, and secures it to the ground with these adhesive tabs. Buried in one leg of the triangle is a small nail for securing the product in ground where the adhesive will not take hold.; You ask two questions. The first is whether this agency will send you letter stating that your product may be used to indicate the presence of a disable passenger vehicle. The second question is whether this agency will send you a 'statement...that it is a good idea for passenger vehicles to have a first aid kit, (your product), or even flares in the trunk in case of an accident or breakdown.'; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agenc of the Department of Transportation, and has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.; Standard 125, *Warning Devices* sets uniform design specifications fo devices used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a disabled vehicle. The Standard applies to any such device without a self-contained energy source that it designed to be carried in motor vehicles and erected when needed to warn approaching traffic. Your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and falls under this Standard. Thus, the 'Insta-Cone' must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configuration, color, and reflectivity. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards.; In answer to your first question, you do not need a letter from thi agency to market your device as a motor vehicle equipment for use to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, so long as your device meets FMVSS 125 requirements. However, NHTSA's preliminary review of your product indicates that the 'Insta- cone' may not comply with the color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability requirements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market and sell it as a warning device.; As I stated earlier in this letter, this agency does not endors commercial products. In answer to your second question, NHTSA must decline to supply you with the kind of statement you suggest.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1171OpenF. A. Stewart, Vice President, Jeep Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; F. A. Stewart Vice President Jeep Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1973, concerning th procedure for testing seat belt attachment bolts specified in section S5.2(c)(1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; The attachment bolts that you describe have extremely long shoulder and are installed in the vehicle by being passed through a hat section before entering the floor pan. Your question is whether the test procedure of S5.2(c)(1) permits the hat section to be used in conjunction with the test fixture shown in Figure 3. It is our opinion that section S5.2(c)(1) permits some discretion in the manner in which the Figure 3 test fixture is to be used and that a hat section duplicating the section used in the vehicle would be permitted as part of the test apparatus. We therefore confirm your impression that you may use the hat section in testing your bolts.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4689OpenMr. Joe W. Humphrey 10250 Goodman Road, #l0l Olive Branch, MS 38654; Mr. Joe W. Humphrey 10250 Goodman Road #l0l Olive Branch MS 38654; Dear Mr. Humphrey: This is in reply to your letter of November 9, 1990 with respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp. You have asked if it is acceptable to add amber turn signal lamps to each side of the center stop lamp. The answer is yes, if the turn signal lamps are separate from the stop lamp. Under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, the center stop lamp cannot be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4723OpenMr. Richard L. Martinez Santa Fe Insurance Agency, Inc. 231 Washington Avenue Santa Fe, NM 87501-1926; Mr. Richard L. Martinez Santa Fe Insurance Agency Inc. 231 Washington Avenue Santa Fe NM 87501-1926; "Re: Europa International, Inc. Dear Mr. Martinez: This is in reply t your letter of March 9, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to 'the $2,000 liability policy' that you discussed with him. You have asked four questions with respect to this subject on behalf of a client who intends to apply for recognition as a registered importer by this agency, and as an independent commercial importer (ICI) under EPA regulations. Initially, let me provide you with some background information. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically Title l5, United States Code, Section 1397(c)(3)(D)(ii), the Department of Transportation is required to prescribe by regulation 'provisions for ensuring that the registered importer (or any successor in interest) will be able technically and financially to carry out the importer's responsibilities under part B of this title (relating to discovery, notification, and remedy of defects).' These responsibilities primarily are to notify vehicle owners in the event that either a safety related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the owner's vehicle, and to remedy the situation. In developing a regulation to implement the statutory requirement, the agency examined the regulations of the EPA pertaining to ICIs. In a final rule published on September 25, l987 (52 FR 36136), EPA required ICIs to provide to vehicle or engine owners warranties, and to ensure that the warranties 'are insured by a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance company', and 'are transferable to each successive owner . . . .' (40 CFR 85.1510(b)(2)). In commenting on EPA's proposed regulation, the State of California had noted that CARB's own new regulation addressing non-conforming vehicles required modifiers to post a prepaid surety bond in the amount of $1,000 per vehicle to cover its obligation to perform recalls, or alternatively, to purchase insurance which will cover the modifier's recall obligation. The Department of Transportation, wishing to conform as closely as possible to procedures already in practice for grey market importers who were ICIs, proposed and adopted 49 CFR 592.6(h), requiring registered importers to 'maintain in effect a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance complany as a guarantor of its performance under paragraph (f) of this section.' (which relates to notification and remedy). With this background in mind, I shall reply to your four questions: '1. Is it required that the term of the policy be for eight years from the date of purchase/sale?' In essence, yes. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are required to provide remedy without charge for a period of 8 years following the first purchase of a vehicle (however, there is no limit on the time for notification). The general requirement for registered importers, established by Section 592.6(f)(2)(i), is that the obligation to provide remedy without charge shall not apply if the noncompliance or safety related defect exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after importation occurred more than 8 calendar years before notification respecting the failure to comply is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. However, during the 8-year period following sale after importation, the registered importer is not obligated to provide repair without charge if two factors are present. The first is that the condition is a safety related defect that is attributable solely to the original manufacturer of the vehicle, and not to the registered importer. The second is that the date of the original first purchase of the vehicle, if known, or, if not known, the date of manufacture, as determined by the Department of Transportation, is more than 8 years from the date on which notification is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. '2. The limit is $2,000. Would that apply annually or would it be for the entire eight-year period? The reason for this question is that the companies are wondering whether or not this is a cumulative limit, e.g., $2,000 x eight years = $16,000.' The purpose of the policy is to ensure that any noncompliance or safety related defect that is determined to exist in a vehicle may be remedied without charge to the vehicle owner. If the registered importer is financially unable to effect remedy, then the policy is intended to cover the cost of remedy. The most usual form of remedy is repair. Pursuant to comments received during the course of rulemaking that $2,000 appeared to be the uppermost sum necessary to repair a single noncompliance or safety related defect, the agency adopted section 592.5(a)(8) stating that the policy is 'in an amount that equals $2,000 for each motor vehicle . . . .' The answer to your question can be expressed in the following example. If a registered importer becomes insolvent in the second year following sale of the vehicle, for the next 6 years the policy should be available to any owner of the vehicle to cover the costs of repairing any safety related defect or noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle, with a limit of $2,000 on the cost of correcting any such defect or noncompliance covered by a single campaign. Records of past remedial campaigns are available if insurance companies wish to study the types of noncompliances and safety related defects that have occurred over the years, as well as the model and model years involved. In our judgment, the cost of each repair has been far less than $2,000. If repair is impossible, alternative forms of remedy established by statute are replacement with a vehicle of equivalent value, or repurchase of a vehicle. Obviously this form of remedy cannot occur if the registered importer has gone out of business. '3. You mentioned that the policy was to cover non-compliance or safety defect situations. What are areas to be covered: emissions controls, latent defects, brake problems, warranty situations such as drive train, etc.?' Each system, part, or component of a motor vehicle is covered by the remedial authority. If a component is part of a system necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle does not comply with that standard because of the design or manufacture of that component, replacement of the component with a satisfactory one would be the object of a remedial campaign. For example, if a vehicle could not meet the stopping distance requirement of Standard No. l05 Hydraulic Brake Systems, and that failure was due to the inadequacy of the brake lining, the object of the campaign would be to recall all affected vehicles and replace the brake lining with one by which the vehicle would comply. The statute defines a defect as one that is inclusive of any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. But only defects that are determined to be safety related require correction. The question of whether a defect is safety related depends upon the facts of the individual case. Generally, defects in emission controls are not safety related, nor are 'warranty situations such as drive trains'. Determinations of the existence of noncompliances or safety related defects are made by the registered importer, the Department of Transportation, or the original manufacturer of the vehicle. '4. Europa is looking into whether or not MBNA would provide a warranty policy for the G-wagon multipurpose passenger vehicle not sold in the United States as they currently do for their private passenger vehicles. The present warranty covers for a 12/12 plan. If they were to extend this, is it possible that that could be acceptable as an alternative to the $2,000 limit?' We doubt that MBNA would be willing to extend any type of warranty to a vehicle that is not originally manufactured by its parent company to comply with Federal safety standards, that it does not import, and that is not sold through its dealers. Further, such a vehicle could not be imported into the United States unless the Department of Transportation had determined that it was capable conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, assuming that the G-wagon is deemed eligible for entry and that MBNA is willing to extend a warranty to it, there is no legal reason why MBNA could not assume responsibility for remedial work without charge in the event the registered importer were unable to provide it, whether in the form of an express warranty, or other document. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1521OpenRobert Markowitz, Esq., Lieberman, Tratras & Markowitz, Shepherd Law Plaza Building, 1300 Shepherd Drive, Houston, TX 77007; Robert Markowitz Esq. Lieberman Tratras & Markowitz Shepherd Law Plaza Building 1300 Shepherd Drive Houston TX 77007; Dear Mr. Markowitz: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1974, enclosing a check fo $1,000 and a suggested defect notification letter on behalf of your client, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company.; The notification letter you enclose fails to conform in significan respects to 49 CFR Part 577, *Defect Notification*. The regulation presumes the notification will be sent by the manufacturer, as required by statute, and requires statements conforming to sections 577.4(a) and 577.4(b) to comprise the opening and second statements of the notification. We consider the format you have used, that of sending the letter in the name of an attorney for the company, to be inconsistent with this requirement. The first three sentences of the sample letter should thus be stricken. Moreover, section 577.4(b)(1) requires the vehicle or equipment which contain the defect to be identified in the second statement. Trailers are vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and not 'equipment.' We will accept as sufficient identification the year, model number if any, and the words 'utility trailer' in meeting section 577.4(b)(1). The reference to equipment is inappropriate in that it implies that the defect is in the lighting (which is equipment) rather than in the vehicle.; Your letter also fails to evaluate the risk to traffic safety a required by section 577.4(d). In most cases, the potential result of a failure to install required lighting is vehicle crash, and the notification should thus conform to section 577.4(d)(1).; We consider the second and third sentences of your second paragraph an the second sentence of your next to last paragraph ('This notification is intended . . .') to be disclaimers and prohibited by section 577.6. Each should be stricken.; The sample notification letter must be revised as set forth above t conform to Part 577. In addition, the defect report (49 CFR Part 573) is required to be submitted within 5 days of the determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, and not within 5 days of the mailing of notification letters. Your report should thus be submitted forthwith.; We will hold your check until you have submitted a notification lette and defect report in accordance with our requirements. At that time we will deposit the check and inform you that the case is closed.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5562OpenDennis T. Snyder, Esquire 7600 Red Road Suite 200 South Miami, FL 33143; Dennis T. Snyder Esquire 7600 Red Road Suite 200 South Miami FL 33143; "Dear Mr. Snyder: This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995 asking whether a client of yours is a 'final stage manufacturer' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and vehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs. The term 'manufacturer' is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as 'a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . ' (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to 'all manufacturers of motor vehicles,' as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5. The term 'final stage manufacturer' is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as 'a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.' An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in that section as 'an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle.' The term 'completed vehicle' is in turn defined in section 568.3 as 'a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . . .' Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3. Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle 'in such a manner that it conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates,' and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requirements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehicle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion. Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. 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 motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so. Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366- 5238. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0760OpenMr. Satoshi Nishibori, Engineering Representative, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Elglewood Cliffs, NJ, 07632; Mr. Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Elglewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 to interior components, enclosing pictures. Your list includes heater case, defroster hose, heater duct hose, heater fan, console box, shell cover, harness, reclining device cover, meter cover, shift lever boot, foot boots, and knobs.; None of the components you list are enumerated in S4.1 of Standard No 302. Consequently, they are not subject to the standard unless they are, as specified in S4.1, 'other interior materials . . . that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5098OpenMr. Wayne Malbon National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc. 1250 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D. C. 20005; Mr. Wayne Malbon National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association Inc. 1250 I Street NW Suite 400 Washington D. C. 20005; Dear Mr. Malbon: This responds to your November 17, 1992 telephon conversation with Walter Myers of this office regarding a shipment of truck tire casings being imported into the United States but held up in customs because the casings do not have the DOT symbols molded onto the sidewalls. You asked for a letter from this office setting forth the requirements for the importation of truck tire casings which do not display the DOT symbol, saying that you would use such a letter to show the U. S. Customs Service (USCS)in order to secure the release of the casings. You will find enclosed a letter from this agency to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA, dated June 18, 1981, in which we explained at length the requirements for importation of truck tire casings and the rationale behind those requirements. The information contained in that letter is still fully applicable, except that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety referred to on page 2 is now the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration. Also, the reference on page 3 to Mr. Harrison Feese of the USCS is no longer valid. Point of contact in USCS is now Mr. Gary Manes, same address, (202) 927-1133, or Mr. Jeff Laxague, same address, (202) 927-0402. I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. Jeff Laxague U.S. Customs Service 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W. Room 4119 Washington, D. C. 20229; |
|
ID: aiam1872OpenMr. Byron Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc 5530 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975 inquiring whethe a State may require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; In your phone conversation of March 28 with Mr. Robert Donin of thi office you indicated that the vehicle in question was an ambulance outfitted with a raised roof designed to enable medical personnel to stand inside. The raised top increases the height of the vehicle to 9 feet. You stated that although you could not identify the specific State statute involved, it was your understanding that Virginia requires clearance lights near the top of all vehicles over 7 feet in height. The law to which you apparently were referring is Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265. A copy is enclosed. It states in part:; >>>(a) All motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers exceeding seve feet in height or in width or the widest portion of which extends four inches beyond the front fender extremes shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand front top corners of such vehicle, each of which lamps shall be capable of projecting an amber light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front of such vehicle, and shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand rear top corners of such vehicle, each of which lights shall be capable of projecting a red light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle,***; (b) In addition to the lamps required herein, each such vehicle shal be equipped with amber reflectors located on the side thereof, at or near the front. Red reflectors shall be used on the rear of each such vehicle. Such reflectors shall be securely fastened to the vehicle not less than twenty-four inches and not more than sixty inches from the ground, provided that in the case of a vehicle which is less than twenty-four inches in height such reflectors shall be securely fastened thereto at the highest point the structure of the vehicle will permit. The reflectors required therein shall be of a type that have been approved by the Superintendent. ***<<<; It is important to note that the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code als provides in S 46.1-267; >>>*** No motor vehicle shall be operated on any highway which is equippe with any lighting device other than lamps required or permitted in this article or required or approved by the Superintendent or required by the Federal Department of Transportation.<<<; As you may know, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect safety standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical. By virtue of this provision, the Federal government is said to 'preempt' the field of regulation with respect to any aspect of performance for which there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.; The key question, therefore, is whether Federal Standard No. 108 an Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265 regulate the same 'aspect of performance.' If so, Virginia may not apply its requirement unless the Federal and Virginia requirements are identical. From a comparison of the two laws, it is evident that both address the same aspect of performance and that they are not identical:; >>>*Both the Federal and Virginia laws apply to ambulances. A ambulance is a multipurpose passenger vehicle, under Federal Standard No. 108 and a 'motor vehicle' under Virginia Code 46.1-265.; *Both laws require that the vehicle be equipped with lights at certai specified locations to facilitate recognition of its dimensions.; *The configuration and color of the lights required by the two law differ.<<<; Consequently Federal Standard No. 108 is preemptive, and to the exten that they differ from the Federal requirements the State clearance lamp and reflector requirements quoted are void. The language of Virginia Code S46.1-267, to the effect that lighting devices may conform to Virginia *or* Federal standards, is incorrect.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5132OpenMs Beverley Silver-Corber 6738 Montgomery St. Vancouver, B.C. V6P 4G4; Ms Beverley Silver-Corber 6738 Montgomery St. Vancouver B.C. V6P 4G4; "Dear Ms Silver-Corber: This is in reply to your letter to the agenc with respect to your wish to import into the United States a l992 Honda Accord, which was not manufactured to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. You would like to use the car for a two-year period in the U.S. while your husband is in graduate school. You have asked whether you qualify for an exemption, and whether you will be allowed to import the car for the two years of study. Under regulations of the Department of Transportation that govern the importation of motor vehicles, you, as a nonresident of the United States, are permitted to import your nonconforming Honda for a period of up to one year, provided that the importation is for your personal use, that you will not sell it during that time, and that the vehicle will be exported not later than the end of one year after entry (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 591.5(d)). The reason for the one-year limitation is that, under the Road Traffic Convention (1952) and the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles (1957), Conventions to which the United States is a party, an imported vehicle may be subjected to all the laws of any country in which it has remained longer than one year, including import duties and taxes. In recognition of the effect of these Conventions, we have adopted a one-year limitation on the temporary importation of nonconforming vehicles by nonresidents, and we do not grant waivers or exemptions from this requirement. However, if you return in the Honda to Canada at the end of the first year of your husband's studies, we would regard the export provisions as having been met, and a new one-year period would begin when the car is re-imported into the U.S. for your husband's second year of studies. Although our regulations do provide for indefinite entry of nonconforming vehicles that are imported for 'research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training' (Section 591.5(j)), we do not interpret this as applying to importers who come to the U.S. to study. Rather, it applies to the importer who wishes to import a vehicle so that it may be studied. Sincerely, John Womack Acting 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.