NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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.

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable 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.

More search options

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

Displaying 4341 - 4350 of 16514

Interpretations	Date
search results table
ID: aiam2843 Open Mr. Toko Iinuma, 560 Sylvan Avenue, P.O. Box 1606, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Toko Iinuma 560 Sylvan Avenue P.O. Box 1606 Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This responds to your May 25, 1978, question concerning the strengt requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, as they would be applicable to the anchorage on a single diagonal passive belt system. You ask how many pounds of force should be applied to such a belt system for the anchorage strength test.; The anchorage for a single diagonal passive seat belt should be teste with a 3,000 pound force for purposes of the Standard 210 requirements, the same force required for the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt. Most vehicles with single diagonal passive belt will have knee bolsters or some other method to restrain the legs in a crash, so the anchorage will not experience as much stress as would be placed on a lap belt without knee bolsters. Therefore, 3,000 pound test should ensure that the anchorage for a diagonal passive belt can withstand typical crash forces.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3751 Open Mr. Philip H. Wong, Deltana Enterprises, Inc., 12871 S.W. 117 Street, Miami, FL 33186; Mr. Philip H. Wong Deltana Enterprises Inc. 12871 S.W. 117 Street Miami FL 33186; Dear Mr. Wong: This responds to your letter to this office asking for information o regulations applicable to the importation of new tires, retreaded tires, and used tires casings from Japan into this country. It is not clear from your letter whether you are interested in importing passenger car tires or tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you get the information of concern to you, I will discuss the three situations you asked about for both passenger car tires and tires for use on other motor vehicles.; Generally speaking, all tiers which are subject to a Federal moto vehicle safety standard must have the symbol 'DOT' molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The importation of any tire without the DOT certification symbol on the sidewall would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), and the importer would be subject to a civil penalty of $1000 for each tire he imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall.; New passenger car tires. Section S4.3.1 of Safety Standard No. 10 (49 CFR S571.109) (copy enclosed) requires that all new passenger car tires have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; New tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars Section S6.5(a) of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119) (copy enclosed) requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; Retreaded passenger car tires. Section S6.1 of Standard No. 117 (4 CFR S571.117) (copy enclosed) requires that all retreaded passenger car tires have the symbol DOT molded into the sidewall by the retreader. Retreaded passenger car tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; Retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars No Federal safety standard is applicable to these tires. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the retreader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574 (copy enclosed), if they are to be legally sold in the United States. It would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(E) to sell tires without an identification number.; Used passenger car tires. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) reads in part a follows: 'No person shall...import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title, unless it is in conformity with such standard...' The effect of this language is to require that passenger car tires manufactured on or after the date Standard No. 109 took effect (January 1, 1968) be certified as complying with that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. To be legally imported into the United States, used passenger car tires must either have a DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the original manufacturer or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before January 1, 1968.; Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Th same reasoning applied above in the case of used passenger car tires applies to these tires as well. Standard No. 119 took effect on March 1, 1975, so used tires to be imported into the United States must either have a DOT symbol on the sidewall or proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975.; Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars whic have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported.; You also asked for any other information which your supplier might nee to export tires to the United States. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Yang Ru-tang, which sets forth the requirements which must be satisfied in order for a foreign manufacturer to export tires to this country.; If you need any further information on this subject, please feel fre to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4094 Open Mr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation, 30400 Mound Road, Warren, MI 48090- 9015; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090- 9015; Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Stee concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.; You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of th requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of '(s)eat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly' at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.; You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existin language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard No. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.; You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since a owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle 'B' pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency's April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 210's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.; Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additiona anchorages is not minimal. You said that 'the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.'; While we believe that you have raised a number of important issue concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency has consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as 'a strap, webbing, or similar device' used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 209, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides 'pelvic and upper torso restraint.' Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.; The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts an automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used 'in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by' S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by S4 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that 'an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be used...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option.'; Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, w believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4406 Open Mr. Barry Patterson, President, Patterson Incorporated, 1920 Springfield Road, Kelowna, B.C. V1Y 7R8; Mr. Barry Patterson President Patterson Incorporated 1920 Springfield Road Kelowna B.C. V1Y 7R8; Dear Mr. Patterson: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1987, asking for ou 'acceptance and recommendation' of a safety device endorsed' by the government of the Province of Saskatchewan. This device automatically activates parking lamps, and the lower beams of headlamps 'with the touch of the Brake Pedal'.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority t accept, recommend, or endorse any item of motor vehicle equipment. We can, however, discuss the relationship of your device to U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('the Act') under which the standard was issued. This standard applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. A device such as yours is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. There is no indication in your descriptive literature that the effectiveness of parking lamps, headlamps, or the stop lamps would be impaired by the installation and operation of your device.; With respect to sale in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, you device is not prohibited under the Act if its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner does not render inoperative in whole or in part any lamps installed to comply with Standard No. 108. We see no indication that this would occur. However, such an installer should be aware of the wiring requirement in Standard No. 108 that taillamps, parking lamps, side marker lamps, and the license plate lamp shall be activated when the headlamps are on.; The rules for operation of vehicles in use are established by th individual States, and several of these may have restrictions on the use of headlamps during daylight hours. For further information on this subject you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.; This agency has proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytim running lights, in a manner similar, though not identical, to the new requirement of the Canadian Ministry of Transport. If this proposal is adopted, the Act would prohibit any State from having a different standard than the Federal one. As of the effective date of such an amendment to Standard No. 108 daytime operation of frontal lighting should be permissible in all States.; If you have any further questions we will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4369 Open Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President, Product Compliance and Service, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., P.O. Box 350, Montvale, NJ 07645; Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Faber: Thank you for your letter of April 16, 1987, concerning th requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of S4.5.1 of the standard. I hope that the following discussion answers your question.; S4.5.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that each vehicle with a cras deployed occupant protection system must have a label setting out a manufacturer's recommended schedule for the maintenance or replacement needed to keep the performance of the occupant protection system at the level required by the standard. S4.5.1 further provides that 'the label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment.' You explained that at the present time, you place the label for your air bag system on the glove box door. You further explained that you place all other important safety-related information, such as the certification label and tire information placard, on the latch post for the driver's door.; You stated that you want to relocate the air bag label from the glov box door to the latch post on the driver's side. You explained that one of the benefits of the new location is that it will establish a common location for the operator to quickly find important information. You said that the new location should remind vehicle operators of the replacement schedule since the tire pressure placard, which is routinely reviewed by the vehicle operator, is in the same location. Finally, you noted that dealership service personnel will be alerted to the replacement schedule since 'it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post.'; NHTSA agrees that a label placed on the driver's latch post would mee the requirements of S4.5.1. The purpose of the location requirement is to place the replacement and maintenance schedule in a location that can be easily observed by the vehicle owner. Thus, the standard requires the label to be within the occupant compartment of the vehicle. The agency considers a label placed on the latch post, which is inside the exterior surface of the vehicle and is a part of the physical structure that constitutes occupant compartment, as meeting the location requirement. As you pointed out in your letter, the latch post is already used as a location for other important safety-related information about the vehicle.; If you have any further questions on this standard or need additiona information, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1491 Open Mr. Keigo Ohgiya, Executive Director, The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc., 9th Floor, Toranomon Building, No. 15, Shiba Toranomon, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. Keigo Ohgiya Executive Director The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association Inc. 9th Floor Toranomon Building No. 15 Shiba Toranomon Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Ohgiya: This responds to your April 22, 1974, petition to permit the use of th DOT symbol on tires to which no standard applies.; The provisions appearing in the April 3, 1974, Federal Register (3 FR 12104) are amendments to the standard, and your submission is in effect a petition for reconsideration of these changes.; Our reasons for prohibiting the use of the DOT symbol on ties to whic no motor vehicle safety standard is applicable are listed in notice 7. We have found the expense of covering the label to be justified, to avoid confusio in the symbols's meaning and the concept of compliance. We have determined that means are available to securely cover the DOT symbol, or in the alternative, to remove it after the molding process.; For these reasons, your petition is denied. Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator
ID: aiam3156 Open Honorable S. I. Hayakawa, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable S. I. Hayakawa United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Hayakawa: This responds to your October 25, 1979, letter enclosing correspondenc from your constituent Mr. Morrill N. Farr asking about the agency's air brake standard. Mr. Farr also asked about the highway use tax. We understand that the Federal Highway Administration will respond to you directly with an answer to that question.; With respect to the air brake standard, Mr. Farr asked whether th Government would reimburse him for a portion of the costs of installing the no lockup portion of his air brake system. Mr. Farr stated that a court has held the no lockup requirement of the air brake standard invalid, and accordingly, the Government should reimburse vehicle owners for the installation of no lockup systems that have been proven to be faulty.; The court in PACCAR v. The National Highway Traffic Safet Administration, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1978) cert. den'd 439 U.S. 862 (October 2, 1978), stated that the no lockup portions of the standard were invalid because some of the systems constructed in accordance with the requirements were unreliable. The court also indicated that a proper no lockup device could substantially improve the safety of vehicles. Our air brake standard does not specify a particular design or construction of brake system. It is a performance standard, and manufacturers are free to choose any design or construction that complies with the performance requirements. The fact that some manufacturers chose faulty systems is unfortunate. If the system on Mr. Farr's truck is faulty, his remedy lies with the manufacturers of the truck and the system, not with the Government.; This agency has attempted over the past several years to address th problem of faulty systems by initiating several investigations under the statutory provisions requiring manufacturers to recall and remedy defective vehicles and equipment. Those investigations contributed to the decisions of a number of manufacturers to conduct recalls.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4693 Open Roger C. Fairchild, Esq. Shutler and Low 14500 Avion Parkway Suite 300 Chantilly, VA 22021-1101; Roger C. Fairchild Esq. Shutler and Low 14500 Avion Parkway Suite 300 Chantilly VA 22021-1101; "Dear Mr. Fairchild: This responds to your request for my opinion o whether a particular vehicle (the Pinzgauer) would be considered a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. When NHTSA previously considered this question, we stated in a March 25, 1982 letter to Mr. Leonard Fink that the Pinzgauer would be considered to be a motor vehicle, based on the information that was available to the agency at that time. However, that letter also stated that the agency would be willing to reconsider this conclusion if additional information were provided regarding the vehicle's marketing, advertising, and actual use. Your recent letter set forth three additional factors that you suggested might lead the agency to change its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer was a motor vehicle. As explained in detail below, this agency reaffirms the previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle'. Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated. Vehicles such as the Pinzgauer are not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, the Pinzgauer is obviously designed to have substantial off-road capabilities, as evidenced by high ground clearance, deep water fording capabilities, and all-wheel drive. According to its manufacturer, 95 percent of the annual production of Pinzgauers is purchased by armed forces worldwide. These factors suggest that the Pinzgauer should not be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, the available information shows the Pinzgauer is suitable for use on-road. The vehicle has a top speed of nearly 70 miles per hour. Page 4 of Enclosure 1 of your letter shows that the Pinzgauer is equipped with turn signals and states that the power steering minimizes steering effort 'both in difficult terrain and when parking.' Page 4 of Enclosure 3 with your letter describes the serviceability of the Pinzgauer 'with ordinary on- and off-road usage.' These factors suggest that the vehicle is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, which suggests that it should be classified as a motor vehicle. In instances where the agency is asked whether something is a motor vehicle, when the vehicle has both on-road and off-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, NHTSA has applied five factors to reach its conclusion. These factors are: 1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. 2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. 3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. 4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. 5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. When NHTSA previously considered whether the Pinzgauer should be considered a motor vehicle, the available information regarding these factors showed that the manufacturer had equipped the vehicle with side marker lights, the manufacturer expected the vehicle to be used on-road, and that it would be sold by dealers that also sell vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles. In your letter, you enclosed some additional information and brochures from the manufacturer that show the manufacturer continues to expect Pinzgauers to be used both on- and off-road. Since the manufacturer does not now expect to sponsor the vehicle's sale in the U.S., no information is available on the anticipated dealers. The additional information enclosed with your letter did not specifically address any factors on which no information was previously available to NHTSA. Hence, the agency has no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle. You suggested three reasons that might lead the agency to reverse its previous conclusion. First, you suggested that the 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer has a unique body configuration which distinguishes it from typical, on-road vehicles and makes it particularly well suited to off-road use. You correctly noted that the agency's 1982 letter addressed both the 4-wheeled and 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. However, for the purposes of this analysis, there is no attribute of the 6-wheeled version that would lead the agency to conclude that it should be classified differently than the 4-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. Many vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles have 6 wheels. In all other respects, the 4- and 6-wheeled Pinzgauers have similar on-road capabilities, including a top speed of more than 65 miles per hour. Second, you suggested that NHTSA concluded that the Unimog is not a 'motor vehicle' in a February 7, 1984 letter, and that the Unimog and Pinzgauer are comparable vehicles. In the February 7, 1984 letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber to which you refer, NHTSA stated that it had no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Unimog was not a 'motor vehicle.' NHTSA also noted that this conclusion was based upon the assumptions that Unimog vehicles would continue to be marketed through dealers of farm machinery and heavy equipment and that Unimog vehicles would have a label affixed stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use. In other words, the information available for Unimog (especially regarding factors number 4 and 5 above) was sufficient to lead the agency to conclude that it was not a motor vehicle, even though Unimogs are operationally capable of on-road use. By way of contrast, either no information is available for Pinzgauer vehicles regarding the five factors identified above or, if information is available for a factor, it suggests that the Pinzgauer should be treated as a motor vehicle. Since the Pinzgauer is operationally capable of on-road use, and there is no indication that the manufacturer does not intend for it to spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA reaffirms its previous statement that these vehicles appear to be 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Third, you suggested that NHTSA's 1982 conclusion did not include a consideration of the primary design intent of the Pinzgauer for military purposes and the high percentage of its total sales to the military. NHTSA's 1982 conclusion and this reconsideration both are addressed only to the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer. The military versions of the Pinzgauer would not be subject to the safety standards if their sales satisfied 49 CFR 571.7(c). In both the 1982 and this examination of whether the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer are motor vehicles, the agency fully considered the substantial off-road capabilities of these vehicles. However, absent indications that the manufacturer does not intend the Pinzgauer to spend substantial periods of time on-road, NHTSA concluded in 1982, and reaffirms at this time, that the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer appear to be 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam4739 Open The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senate 1100 Commerce, Room 7C14 Dallas, TX 75242; The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senate 1100 Commerce Room 7C14 Dallas TX 75242; "Dear Senator Bentsen: Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curr on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. The Administrator has asked me to reply. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out Ford's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and asked for additional information about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information. Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that the vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends that dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from the customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new 'school buses,' which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are 'sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events.' Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a 'school bus' for the purposes of the safety standards. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable safety standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for ensuring that the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applicable school bus standards. The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of 'school bus,' that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportation, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statement indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified school bus. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, the person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students is not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person who plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicle is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are 'probably the biggest customer' Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either: a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in Voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation. Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact the State government to learn more about any State requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses. Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety considerations, NHTSA endorses Ford's recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes. I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional information. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. W.A. Jacques Dealer Fleet Operations Manager Ford Rent-A-Car System 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 43311 Detroit, MI 48243";
ID: aiam3506 Open Mr. Robert Munoz, Wonder Enterprise, 2955 S.W. 15 Street, Miami, FL 33145; Mr. Robert Munoz Wonder Enterprise 2955 S.W. 15 Street Miami FL 33145; Dear Mr. Munoz: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1982, asking whethe Federal regulations would prohibit use of your patented device, the 'Illuminated Wonder Panel.' This device would be used in the space provided for the front license plate and consists of a panel on which numbers or letters would be illuminated from behind, if an owner wished to 'personalize' his vehicle. You have indicated that the candela for each character averages .0365, and that with a seven character maximum, a total output of less than .25 candela would result. You submitted photographs showing this device in operation from a distance of 50 feet on a vehicle using parking lamps only, and using parking lamps/low beam headlamps.; Your device is not directly regulated by the Federal motor vehicl safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108 (sic) As an item of original equipment, your device is permissible unless it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, such as parking lamps and headlamps. Judging by the photographs you submitted, it does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. As an aftermarket item, your device is subject to regulation by any State in which the vehicle bearing it is registered. You will have to consult these States for further advice.; We hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for 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.

Interpretations	Date
search results table
ID: aiam2843 Open Mr. Toko Iinuma, 560 Sylvan Avenue, P.O. Box 1606, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Toko Iinuma 560 Sylvan Avenue P.O. Box 1606 Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This responds to your May 25, 1978, question concerning the strengt requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, as they would be applicable to the anchorage on a single diagonal passive belt system. You ask how many pounds of force should be applied to such a belt system for the anchorage strength test.; The anchorage for a single diagonal passive seat belt should be teste with a 3,000 pound force for purposes of the Standard 210 requirements, the same force required for the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt. Most vehicles with single diagonal passive belt will have knee bolsters or some other method to restrain the legs in a crash, so the anchorage will not experience as much stress as would be placed on a lap belt without knee bolsters. Therefore, 3,000 pound test should ensure that the anchorage for a diagonal passive belt can withstand typical crash forces.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3751 Open Mr. Philip H. Wong, Deltana Enterprises, Inc., 12871 S.W. 117 Street, Miami, FL 33186; Mr. Philip H. Wong Deltana Enterprises Inc. 12871 S.W. 117 Street Miami FL 33186; Dear Mr. Wong: This responds to your letter to this office asking for information o regulations applicable to the importation of new tires, retreaded tires, and used tires casings from Japan into this country. It is not clear from your letter whether you are interested in importing passenger car tires or tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you get the information of concern to you, I will discuss the three situations you asked about for both passenger car tires and tires for use on other motor vehicles.; Generally speaking, all tiers which are subject to a Federal moto vehicle safety standard must have the symbol 'DOT' molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The importation of any tire without the DOT certification symbol on the sidewall would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), and the importer would be subject to a civil penalty of $1000 for each tire he imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall.; New passenger car tires. Section S4.3.1 of Safety Standard No. 10 (49 CFR S571.109) (copy enclosed) requires that all new passenger car tires have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; New tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars Section S6.5(a) of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119) (copy enclosed) requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; Retreaded passenger car tires. Section S6.1 of Standard No. 117 (4 CFR S571.117) (copy enclosed) requires that all retreaded passenger car tires have the symbol DOT molded into the sidewall by the retreader. Retreaded passenger car tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; Retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars No Federal safety standard is applicable to these tires. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the retreader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574 (copy enclosed), if they are to be legally sold in the United States. It would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(E) to sell tires without an identification number.; Used passenger car tires. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) reads in part a follows: 'No person shall...import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title, unless it is in conformity with such standard...' The effect of this language is to require that passenger car tires manufactured on or after the date Standard No. 109 took effect (January 1, 1968) be certified as complying with that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. To be legally imported into the United States, used passenger car tires must either have a DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the original manufacturer or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before January 1, 1968.; Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Th same reasoning applied above in the case of used passenger car tires applies to these tires as well. Standard No. 119 took effect on March 1, 1975, so used tires to be imported into the United States must either have a DOT symbol on the sidewall or proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975.; Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars whic have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported.; You also asked for any other information which your supplier might nee to export tires to the United States. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Yang Ru-tang, which sets forth the requirements which must be satisfied in order for a foreign manufacturer to export tires to this country.; If you need any further information on this subject, please feel fre to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4094 Open Mr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation, 30400 Mound Road, Warren, MI 48090- 9015; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090- 9015; Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Stee concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.; You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of th requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of '(s)eat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly' at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.; You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existin language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard No. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.; You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since a owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle 'B' pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency's April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 210's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.; Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additiona anchorages is not minimal. You said that 'the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.'; While we believe that you have raised a number of important issue concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency has consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as 'a strap, webbing, or similar device' used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 209, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides 'pelvic and upper torso restraint.' Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.; The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts an automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used 'in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by' S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by S4 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that 'an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be used...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option.'; Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, w believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4406 Open Mr. Barry Patterson, President, Patterson Incorporated, 1920 Springfield Road, Kelowna, B.C. V1Y 7R8; Mr. Barry Patterson President Patterson Incorporated 1920 Springfield Road Kelowna B.C. V1Y 7R8; Dear Mr. Patterson: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1987, asking for ou 'acceptance and recommendation' of a safety device endorsed' by the government of the Province of Saskatchewan. This device automatically activates parking lamps, and the lower beams of headlamps 'with the touch of the Brake Pedal'.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority t accept, recommend, or endorse any item of motor vehicle equipment. We can, however, discuss the relationship of your device to U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('the Act') under which the standard was issued. This standard applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. A device such as yours is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. There is no indication in your descriptive literature that the effectiveness of parking lamps, headlamps, or the stop lamps would be impaired by the installation and operation of your device.; With respect to sale in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, you device is not prohibited under the Act if its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner does not render inoperative in whole or in part any lamps installed to comply with Standard No. 108. We see no indication that this would occur. However, such an installer should be aware of the wiring requirement in Standard No. 108 that taillamps, parking lamps, side marker lamps, and the license plate lamp shall be activated when the headlamps are on.; The rules for operation of vehicles in use are established by th individual States, and several of these may have restrictions on the use of headlamps during daylight hours. For further information on this subject you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.; This agency has proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytim running lights, in a manner similar, though not identical, to the new requirement of the Canadian Ministry of Transport. If this proposal is adopted, the Act would prohibit any State from having a different standard than the Federal one. As of the effective date of such an amendment to Standard No. 108 daytime operation of frontal lighting should be permissible in all States.; If you have any further questions we will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4369 Open Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President, Product Compliance and Service, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., P.O. Box 350, Montvale, NJ 07645; Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Faber: Thank you for your letter of April 16, 1987, concerning th requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of S4.5.1 of the standard. I hope that the following discussion answers your question.; S4.5.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that each vehicle with a cras deployed occupant protection system must have a label setting out a manufacturer's recommended schedule for the maintenance or replacement needed to keep the performance of the occupant protection system at the level required by the standard. S4.5.1 further provides that 'the label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment.' You explained that at the present time, you place the label for your air bag system on the glove box door. You further explained that you place all other important safety-related information, such as the certification label and tire information placard, on the latch post for the driver's door.; You stated that you want to relocate the air bag label from the glov box door to the latch post on the driver's side. You explained that one of the benefits of the new location is that it will establish a common location for the operator to quickly find important information. You said that the new location should remind vehicle operators of the replacement schedule since the tire pressure placard, which is routinely reviewed by the vehicle operator, is in the same location. Finally, you noted that dealership service personnel will be alerted to the replacement schedule since 'it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post.'; NHTSA agrees that a label placed on the driver's latch post would mee the requirements of S4.5.1. The purpose of the location requirement is to place the replacement and maintenance schedule in a location that can be easily observed by the vehicle owner. Thus, the standard requires the label to be within the occupant compartment of the vehicle. The agency considers a label placed on the latch post, which is inside the exterior surface of the vehicle and is a part of the physical structure that constitutes occupant compartment, as meeting the location requirement. As you pointed out in your letter, the latch post is already used as a location for other important safety-related information about the vehicle.; If you have any further questions on this standard or need additiona information, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1491 Open Mr. Keigo Ohgiya, Executive Director, The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc., 9th Floor, Toranomon Building, No. 15, Shiba Toranomon, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. Keigo Ohgiya Executive Director The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association Inc. 9th Floor Toranomon Building No. 15 Shiba Toranomon Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Ohgiya: This responds to your April 22, 1974, petition to permit the use of th DOT symbol on tires to which no standard applies.; The provisions appearing in the April 3, 1974, Federal Register (3 FR 12104) are amendments to the standard, and your submission is in effect a petition for reconsideration of these changes.; Our reasons for prohibiting the use of the DOT symbol on ties to whic no motor vehicle safety standard is applicable are listed in notice 7. We have found the expense of covering the label to be justified, to avoid confusio in the symbols's meaning and the concept of compliance. We have determined that means are available to securely cover the DOT symbol, or in the alternative, to remove it after the molding process.; For these reasons, your petition is denied. Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator
ID: aiam3156 Open Honorable S. I. Hayakawa, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable S. I. Hayakawa United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Hayakawa: This responds to your October 25, 1979, letter enclosing correspondenc from your constituent Mr. Morrill N. Farr asking about the agency's air brake standard. Mr. Farr also asked about the highway use tax. We understand that the Federal Highway Administration will respond to you directly with an answer to that question.; With respect to the air brake standard, Mr. Farr asked whether th Government would reimburse him for a portion of the costs of installing the no lockup portion of his air brake system. Mr. Farr stated that a court has held the no lockup requirement of the air brake standard invalid, and accordingly, the Government should reimburse vehicle owners for the installation of no lockup systems that have been proven to be faulty.; The court in PACCAR v. The National Highway Traffic Safet Administration, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1978) cert. den'd 439 U.S. 862 (October 2, 1978), stated that the no lockup portions of the standard were invalid because some of the systems constructed in accordance with the requirements were unreliable. The court also indicated that a proper no lockup device could substantially improve the safety of vehicles. Our air brake standard does not specify a particular design or construction of brake system. It is a performance standard, and manufacturers are free to choose any design or construction that complies with the performance requirements. The fact that some manufacturers chose faulty systems is unfortunate. If the system on Mr. Farr's truck is faulty, his remedy lies with the manufacturers of the truck and the system, not with the Government.; This agency has attempted over the past several years to address th problem of faulty systems by initiating several investigations under the statutory provisions requiring manufacturers to recall and remedy defective vehicles and equipment. Those investigations contributed to the decisions of a number of manufacturers to conduct recalls.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4693 Open Roger C. Fairchild, Esq. Shutler and Low 14500 Avion Parkway Suite 300 Chantilly, VA 22021-1101; Roger C. Fairchild Esq. Shutler and Low 14500 Avion Parkway Suite 300 Chantilly VA 22021-1101; "Dear Mr. Fairchild: This responds to your request for my opinion o whether a particular vehicle (the Pinzgauer) would be considered a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. When NHTSA previously considered this question, we stated in a March 25, 1982 letter to Mr. Leonard Fink that the Pinzgauer would be considered to be a motor vehicle, based on the information that was available to the agency at that time. However, that letter also stated that the agency would be willing to reconsider this conclusion if additional information were provided regarding the vehicle's marketing, advertising, and actual use. Your recent letter set forth three additional factors that you suggested might lead the agency to change its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer was a motor vehicle. As explained in detail below, this agency reaffirms the previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle'. Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated. Vehicles such as the Pinzgauer are not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, the Pinzgauer is obviously designed to have substantial off-road capabilities, as evidenced by high ground clearance, deep water fording capabilities, and all-wheel drive. According to its manufacturer, 95 percent of the annual production of Pinzgauers is purchased by armed forces worldwide. These factors suggest that the Pinzgauer should not be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, the available information shows the Pinzgauer is suitable for use on-road. The vehicle has a top speed of nearly 70 miles per hour. Page 4 of Enclosure 1 of your letter shows that the Pinzgauer is equipped with turn signals and states that the power steering minimizes steering effort 'both in difficult terrain and when parking.' Page 4 of Enclosure 3 with your letter describes the serviceability of the Pinzgauer 'with ordinary on- and off-road usage.' These factors suggest that the vehicle is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, which suggests that it should be classified as a motor vehicle. In instances where the agency is asked whether something is a motor vehicle, when the vehicle has both on-road and off-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, NHTSA has applied five factors to reach its conclusion. These factors are: 1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. 2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. 3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. 4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. 5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. When NHTSA previously considered whether the Pinzgauer should be considered a motor vehicle, the available information regarding these factors showed that the manufacturer had equipped the vehicle with side marker lights, the manufacturer expected the vehicle to be used on-road, and that it would be sold by dealers that also sell vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles. In your letter, you enclosed some additional information and brochures from the manufacturer that show the manufacturer continues to expect Pinzgauers to be used both on- and off-road. Since the manufacturer does not now expect to sponsor the vehicle's sale in the U.S., no information is available on the anticipated dealers. The additional information enclosed with your letter did not specifically address any factors on which no information was previously available to NHTSA. Hence, the agency has no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle. You suggested three reasons that might lead the agency to reverse its previous conclusion. First, you suggested that the 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer has a unique body configuration which distinguishes it from typical, on-road vehicles and makes it particularly well suited to off-road use. You correctly noted that the agency's 1982 letter addressed both the 4-wheeled and 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. However, for the purposes of this analysis, there is no attribute of the 6-wheeled version that would lead the agency to conclude that it should be classified differently than the 4-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. Many vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles have 6 wheels. In all other respects, the 4- and 6-wheeled Pinzgauers have similar on-road capabilities, including a top speed of more than 65 miles per hour. Second, you suggested that NHTSA concluded that the Unimog is not a 'motor vehicle' in a February 7, 1984 letter, and that the Unimog and Pinzgauer are comparable vehicles. In the February 7, 1984 letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber to which you refer, NHTSA stated that it had no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Unimog was not a 'motor vehicle.' NHTSA also noted that this conclusion was based upon the assumptions that Unimog vehicles would continue to be marketed through dealers of farm machinery and heavy equipment and that Unimog vehicles would have a label affixed stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use. In other words, the information available for Unimog (especially regarding factors number 4 and 5 above) was sufficient to lead the agency to conclude that it was not a motor vehicle, even though Unimogs are operationally capable of on-road use. By way of contrast, either no information is available for Pinzgauer vehicles regarding the five factors identified above or, if information is available for a factor, it suggests that the Pinzgauer should be treated as a motor vehicle. Since the Pinzgauer is operationally capable of on-road use, and there is no indication that the manufacturer does not intend for it to spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA reaffirms its previous statement that these vehicles appear to be 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Third, you suggested that NHTSA's 1982 conclusion did not include a consideration of the primary design intent of the Pinzgauer for military purposes and the high percentage of its total sales to the military. NHTSA's 1982 conclusion and this reconsideration both are addressed only to the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer. The military versions of the Pinzgauer would not be subject to the safety standards if their sales satisfied 49 CFR 571.7(c). In both the 1982 and this examination of whether the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer are motor vehicles, the agency fully considered the substantial off-road capabilities of these vehicles. However, absent indications that the manufacturer does not intend the Pinzgauer to spend substantial periods of time on-road, NHTSA concluded in 1982, and reaffirms at this time, that the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer appear to be 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam4739 Open The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senate 1100 Commerce, Room 7C14 Dallas, TX 75242; The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senate 1100 Commerce Room 7C14 Dallas TX 75242; "Dear Senator Bentsen: Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curr on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. The Administrator has asked me to reply. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out Ford's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and asked for additional information about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information. Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that the vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends that dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from the customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new 'school buses,' which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are 'sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events.' Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a 'school bus' for the purposes of the safety standards. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable safety standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for ensuring that the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applicable school bus standards. The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of 'school bus,' that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportation, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statement indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified school bus. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, the person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students is not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person who plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicle is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are 'probably the biggest customer' Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either: a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in Voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation. Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact the State government to learn more about any State requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses. Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety considerations, NHTSA endorses Ford's recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes. I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional information. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. W.A. Jacques Dealer Fleet Operations Manager Ford Rent-A-Car System 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 43311 Detroit, MI 48243";
ID: aiam3506 Open Mr. Robert Munoz, Wonder Enterprise, 2955 S.W. 15 Street, Miami, FL 33145; Mr. Robert Munoz Wonder Enterprise 2955 S.W. 15 Street Miami FL 33145; Dear Mr. Munoz: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1982, asking whethe Federal regulations would prohibit use of your patented device, the 'Illuminated Wonder Panel.' This device would be used in the space provided for the front license plate and consists of a panel on which numbers or letters would be illuminated from behind, if an owner wished to 'personalize' his vehicle. You have indicated that the candela for each character averages .0365, and that with a seven character maximum, a total output of less than .25 candela would result. You submitted photographs showing this device in operation from a distance of 50 feet on a vehicle using parking lamps only, and using parking lamps/low beam headlamps.; Your device is not directly regulated by the Federal motor vehicl safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108 (sic) As an item of original equipment, your device is permissible unless it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, such as parking lamps and headlamps. Judging by the photographs you submitted, it does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. As an aftermarket item, your device is subject to regulation by any State in which the vehicle bearing it is registered. You will have to consult these States for further advice.; We hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam2843

ID: aiam3751

ID: aiam4094

ID: aiam4406

ID: aiam4369

ID: aiam1491

ID: aiam3156

ID: aiam4693

ID: aiam4739

ID: aiam3506

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?