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: aiam3365OpenMr. Robert A. Belcher, President, Coded Electronics Corporation, 1239 Taylor, San Francisco, CA 94108; Mr. Robert A. Belcher President Coded Electronics Corporation 1239 Taylor San Francisco CA 94108; Dear Mr. Belcher: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1980 asking whether you emergency hazard signaling system conforms with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You also asked as to the steps necessary to make it mandatory.; From the specifications provided in your letter, it appears that bot modes of operation (hazard and distress) would comply with the flash rates and the percent of current 'on' time required by SAE J945, the standard for hazard warning signal flashers incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If your device meets all other requirements of SAE J945 and SAE J910, the standard for hazard warning signal operating units also incorporated by reference, it should comply with Standard No. 108.; I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, setting forth the procedure under which you may petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would require a distress signaling system on vehicles.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1358OpenMr. H. A. Sage, Director, Research & Development, Truck-Lite Company, P. O. Box 387, Jamestown, NY, 14701; Mr. H. A. Sage Director Research & Development Truck-Lite Company P. O. Box 387 Jamestown NY 14701; Dear Mr. Sage: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1973, concerning th placement of rear identification lamps on the header of Fruehauf trailers.; I enclose a copy of a recent exhange (sic) of correspondence betwee Fruehauf and this agency on this question which I believe is in point. It is our view that if a lamp is available which may be installed in a narrow header area, the upper location is 'practicable' even though the lamps may not be the one specified by the vehicle's purchaser.; Yours truly, Richard By. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1476OpenMr. Stanley Heller, Vice President, Open Road Industries, Inc., 2601 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278; Mr. Stanley Heller Vice President Open Road Industries Inc. 2601 Manhattan Beach Boulevard Redondo Beach CA 90278; Dear Mr. Heller: This is in reply to your letter of March 21, 1974, regarding Ope Road's defect notification letter in NHTSA campaign No. 73-0043. We indicated to you by letter of March 21, 1974, that notification letters in future campaigns must be modified to conform to S 577.4(e)(3) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577) if you continue to make repairs contingent upon the purchaser's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision found in Open Road's 'Authorization for Repair and Alteration' form. You state in your letter that the *sole* purpose of the indemnity and hold-harmless provision is to protect your company from claims from third parties for unauthorized repairs.; While it is true, as you point out, that the indemnity an hold-harmless provision is not part of the notification letter, that fact is not germane to our conclusion that your letter must conform to S 577.4(e)(3) if you continue only to make repairs contingent upon the owner's agreement to the provision in question. We are pleased to know that the provision's sole purpose is to protect the company against claims from unknown owners for unauthorized repairs, and we do not object to repairs being contingent upon the owner's agreement to such a provision. But if that is the case we would insist that the provision be more narrowly drafted so that its intent is clear. If that is done Open Road may continue to send notification letters that conform to S 577.4(e)(1). The responses we have had from owners of Open Road vehicles subject to defect notification and our own review of the provision are persuasive in our view that at present this limited intent is not clear.; Notwithstanding your reference to the meeting Open Road officials ha with Robert Carter and Andrew Detrick of NHTSA, at no time was approval given to Open Road's notification letter with knowledge that repair would be made only following the owner's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4674OpenMr. John G. Sims Governmental Affairs Champion Motor Coach, Inc. 5573 North Street Dryden, Michigan 48428; Mr. John G. Sims Governmental Affairs Champion Motor Coach Inc. 5573 North Street Dryden Michigan 48428; "Dear Mr. Sims: This responds to your November 6, 1989 letter to Rober Hellmuth, Director of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). In that letter, you stated that OVSC had misinterpreted and misapplied the requirements of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). I conclude that OVSC correctly interpreted those sections of Standard No. 217 and correctly applied those sections to your company's buses. The buses in question are not school buses and have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, section S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: '... each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' ... followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism.' Your company has designated the door immediately adjacent to the driver's seating position in these buses as an emergency exit. Operating instructions for that emergency exit are located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. However, the designation of this door as an emergency exit appears on a label located on a stanchion immediately behind the driver's seat, facing the passenger seating area. This designation does not appear within 6 inches of the release mechanism. You suggest that this arrangement complies with Standard No. 217, because S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. I disagree with your suggestion. While it might be possible to construe the language of S5.5.1 in the manner you suggest, the agency has consistently interpreted S5.5.1 as requiring that both the emergency exit designation and the operating instructions be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Nothing in the correspondence you refer to undermines this conclusion. Contrary to the assertion in your letter, there is a clear safety basis for requiring the emergency exit designation to be within 6 inches of the emergency exit release mechanism. This ensures that any person reaching the exit can quickly find both the release mechanism and the instructions. In an emergency, persons are used to finding an emergency exit where they see a label with the designation 'Emergency Exit.' In your company's buses, a person seeing the emergency exit label located on the driver's seat stanchion could be misled into thinking that there is an exit somewhere behind the driver's seat, rather than at the driver's door, thus wasting valuable escape time. This is exactly the type of situation S5.5.1 is intended to prevent. Your letter also suggests that requiring the emergency exit designation within 6 inches of the release mechanism would substantially reduce the visibility of the emergency exit sign, since the operating mechanism is frequently located below the shoulder level of seated passengers. While this may be true in some cases, I do not believe it would be likely to impede emergency egress. In an emergency situation, the occupants of the seat adjacent to the exit are likely to be the first ones out of the exit, and would thus no longer impede the visibility of the exit designation for other passengers seeking to exit. We are only focusing on the designation here. Also, once it is open, the instructions aren't needed. Your letter also suggests that the emergency exit requirements for school buses, contained in S5.5.3, support your interpretation of S5.5.1, because the school bus emergency exit requirements specifically authorize the separation of the emergency exit designation and operating instructions. I must again disagree with you on this point. NHTSA recognized the considerable differences between school buses and other buses when Standard No. 217 was being developed. S5.5.3 addresses a very different set of circumstances. School buses typically have one emergency door, located at or near the rear of the bus. The requirement in S5.5.3 that the designation be in letters at least two inches high 'at the top of or directly above the emergency exit' is designed to ensure that school bus passengers will be able to locate this exit from any seating position in the bus. This is not the case for your company's buses, which feature several window exits located throughout the bus, in addition to the exit at issue here. The second issue raised in your letter concerns the requirements of S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires that emergency exit 'markings' be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity conditions set forth in S5.5.2. You suggested that the emergency exit 'markings' referenced in S5.5.2 refers only to the designation of an exit as an emergency exit, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit. I disagree with this suggestion as well. As we noted earlier, S5.5.1 sets forth requirements for both emergency exit designations and emergency exit operating instructions. Immediately following these requirements, S5.5.2 specifies that 'each marking shall be legible ...' (emphasis added). S5.5.2 nowhere draws any distinction between markings designating an exit as an emergency exit and markings setting forth operating instructions for the emergency exit. Neither is any such distinction inherent in the use of the term 'marking.' Accordingly, the ordinary meaning of the term 'marking' and the background of this regulatory provision show that as used in S5.5.2, the word 'markings' refers to both the emergency exit designation and the emergency exit operating instructions required by S5.5.1. If you have any further questions concerning these issues, please feel free to contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1026OpenMr. Joseph R. Radzius, Food and Drug Counsel, Dow Corning Corporation, Midland, Michigan 48640; Mr. Joseph R. Radzius Food and Drug Counsel Dow Corning Corporation Midland Michigan 48640; Dear Mr. Radzius: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1973, in which yo inquired whether our brake fluid standard, No. 116, has preempted State regulation with respect to silicone-based fluids.; As you know, Standard No. 116 does not presently contain an performance requirements for silicone-based brake fluids. The recent amendment of January 31, 1973 (38 FR 2981) only establishes labeling requirements for these fluids.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 1 U.S.C. 1392(d), states that no State shall have a safety standard 'applicable to the same aspect of performance' as a Federal standard that is not identical to the Federal standard. In this case, no 'aspects of performance' at all, other than labeling, are covered by the Federal standard, so the State performance standards other than labeling cannot be said to cover the same aspects of performance. For these reasons the State performance requirements are not preempted by Standard No. 116. To hold otherwise would have the effect of voiding all State regulation of this product, leaving nothing in its place, until a Federal standard came into effect. No such results were intended by the issuance of the labeling amendment.; Work is in process to propose performance standards for silicone-base brake fluids, and we plan to have requirements in effect before very much more time passes. At that time, of course, all State regulations will have to be identical to the Federal standard.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4224OpenMr. Tom McRedmond, Motor Vehicle Division, 500 Deaderick Street, Nashville, TN 37242; Mr. Tom McRedmond Motor Vehicle Division 500 Deaderick Street Nashville TN 37242; Dear Mr. McRedmond: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been informe that you have been advising dealers that the Tennessee Certificate of Title may be used in lieu of a separate odometer disclosure statement. We have reviewed the title and have determined that it fails to meet the requirements of the Federal odometer disclosure regulation, 49 C.F.R. Part 580.; The Tennessee title cannot be used in lieu of a separate odomete disclosure statement. Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration allows the use of the abbreviated disclosure statements as they appear on the title, the title fails to meet the regulatory requirements because it does not include a space for the buyer's signature. This Agency considers the signature to be essential. It is an acknowledgment that the purchaser is aware of the mileage and prevents the purchaser from later alleging that he was not informed of the mileage or that the mileage was different from that appearing on the title. Furthermore, the buyer's signature is important to investigative and prosecutorial efforts.; Dealers who do not issue and/or retain a copy of a separate odomete disclosure statement may be liable for civil and criminal penalties. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call Judith Kaleta of my staff at (202) 366-1834.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0267OpenMr. G. M. Hespeler, Manager, Government Liaison, Mercedes- Benz of North America, Inc., 158 Linwood Plaza, P.O. Box 318, Fort Lee, NJ 07024; Mr. G. M. Hespeler Manager Government Liaison Mercedes- Benz of North America Inc. 158 Linwood Plaza P.O. Box 318 Fort Lee NJ 07024; Dear Mr. Hespeler: Thank you for your letter of September 29, 1970, concerning th application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 to the door locks and door retention components on the C-111's gull-wing doors. I appreciate also the design drawings you submitted earlier this month.; As Standard 206 presently exists, the door locks and door retentio components on the C-111 doors must conform to it. As locks and retention components on passenger car side doors that meet the description in the first sentence of S4, they are clearly within the ambit (sic) of the standard. The Bureau recognizes that some of the requirements and test procedures in the standard may not be entirely appropriate for side doors of all designs, and is accordingly considering amendments to the standard.; If we can be of further assistance, please write. Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Crashworthiness, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5065OpenA. Mary Schiavo Inspector General for the Department of Transportation Room 9210 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590; A. Mary Schiavo Inspector General for the Department of Transportation Room 9210 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590; "Dear Ms. Schiavo: Special Agent Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. of your staf asked me to provide you with some information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations dealing with certification and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. This information should prove helpful in connection with an investigation of Bus Industries of America by your office in which Mr. Tucker has been involved. Mr. Tucker presented the following facts. A Canadian company (Ontario Bus Industries, Inc.) manufactured some buses at its plant in Canada. It certified these buses as conforming with all U.S. vehicle safety standards and affixed a label to that effect, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. These buses were then imported into the United States bearing the certification label that had been affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. After the vehicles were imported into the United States, the U.S. company that had imported the buses (Bus Industries of America) removed the Canadian manufacturer's certification label and affixed a new certification label that identified the U.S. company as the manufacturer of these buses. With respect to the information other than the name of the manufacturer, the certification label substituted by the importer was identical to the certification label affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. Mr. Tucker asked us to explain this agency's certification regulations as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and to comment on the assertion that the certification label placed on the buses by the Canadian manufacturer did not meet this agency's certification requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes the following provision at 15 U.S.C. 1403: Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. * * * In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle. NHTSA has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 567) specifying the content and location of, and other requirements for, the vehicle certification label or tag required by this statutory provision. That regulation is relatively straightforward with respect to vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The manufacturer must permanently affix a label containing specified information, including the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the vehicle identification number, and a certification that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in a specified location on the vehicle. The certification regulation becomes more complex in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and certified vehicles that are altered before they have been sold to the public for the first time. In those situations, there is more than one manufacturer's input needed for the certification of the finished vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA has included special provisions in Part 567 specifying the certification requirements for these vehicles and adopted a separate regulation at 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifying the responsibilities of the various manufacturers in ensuring conformity of the completed vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to the Canadian buses described by Mr. Tucker, those vehicles appear to fall into the category of vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The relevant certification requirements for such vehicles are set forth at 49 CFR 567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with 567.4. Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America had argued that it was required to affix its own certification label for two different reasons. First, for some of these buses, Bus Industries of America had produced various component subassemblies (e.g., frame, drivetrain, etc.) and shipped those component subassemblies to Canada to be used in manufacturing these buses. Because of this, Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify the vehicles in its capacity as the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. It is true that 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 impose responsibilities on incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and even allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to assume legal responsibility for the completed vehicle. See 567.5(e) and 568.7(a). However, a party that ships various component subassemblies to another party would not be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of NHTSA's certification regulations. The following definitions appear in 568.3: Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle. Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle. Reading these definitions, it is apparent that a party could not be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer if that party simply produced certain component subsystems and shipped those subsystems off to another party to assemble into a motor vehicle. Based on the facts Mr. Tucker provided this office, the claim that Bus Industries of America should be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer of these buses has no merit. Second, Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify some of these buses because that company had performed minor finishing operations on some buses after it received them from Canada. It may be that Bus Industries of America is suggesting that it should be considered to be a final stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and therefore was responsible for certifying these vehicles per 49 CFR 567 and 568. Alternatively, Bus Industries of America may have been suggesting that it should be considered an alterer of these vehicles, and therefore required to certify them. Neither one of these arguments is supported by the facts. A 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.' The relevant question then is whether these buses were incomplete vehicles. As specified in the definition of 'incomplete vehicle' quoted above, a vehicle that needs only minor finishing operations is not considered an incomplete vehicle. Instead, only those vehicles that need some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function are considered incomplete vehicles. Since the buses in question had been certified by the Canadian manufacturer as completed vehicles and driven over the public roads from the Canadian plant to the U.S., there is no indication that the buses needed some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function. Hence, Bus Industries of America was not a final stage manufacturer of those vehicles. To the extent that Bus Industries of America wishes to be considered an alterer of a previously certified vehicle, 49 CFR 567.6 expressly sets forth requirements for persons that alter vehicles by performing minor finishing operations. That section provides: 'A person ... who alters such a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle.' The sample of the Canadian manufacturer's certification label that Mr. Tucker provided this office conforms to the requirements of Part 567. Hence, even if one accepts the argument by Bus Industries of America that it performed minor finishing operations on previously certified vehicles, it would have still been subject to an express regulatory duty to leave the Canadian manufacturer's certification label in place. The final point I understand Bus Industries of America to be raising was that only a U.S. manufacturer could certify that a vehicle met the U.S. safety standards. This point is incorrect. A vehicle to be imported into the U.S. must be certified as conforming with all U.S. safety standards before it enters the United States. Such a certification is routinely made by manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States. There is no regulation or law administered by this agency that requires the certification to be made only by a U.S. company. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Special Agent Gerard Tucker DOT Office of Inspector General Linpro Center 900 E. 8th Avenue Suite 201 King of Prussia, PA 19406"; |
|
ID: aiam0637OpenMr. R. S. Bright, Vice President, Product Development and Purchasing, Chrysler Corporation, Detroit, MI 48231; Mr. R. S. Bright Vice President Product Development and Purchasing Chrysler Corporation Detroit MI 48231; Dear Mr. Bright: Your letter of February 18, 1972, dealt with three aspects of Standar 215 that continue to be of concern to Chrysler and with one feature of Standard 210 that you regard as inappropriate.; Your first problem with Standard 215 is the requirement for corne impacts at heights below 20 inches. Our response to the objections raised by Chrysler and others when this requirement was made a part of the standard was to grant an additional two years for compliance. We did this in the expectation that the additional time would permit the manufacturers to make the necessary changes within their normal tooling cycle.; The agency considered the corner impact requirement to be justified and it is not now persuaded to the contrary. We would be willing, however, to review any additional information you can provide on the subject of the costs and benefits of the improved corners.; Your second concern has also been expressed at several points in th rulemaking process. In response to comments advocating the use of resilient materials in the bumper itself, the standard was amended to specify a broader impact ridge, rather than to specify the resiliency of material with which contact would be permitted. The agency has not considered the styling effects of the pendulum requirement to be sufficient to justify amending the standard to permit cosmetic additions of the type you describe. Of course you are free to submit additional information to support the need for such an amendment.; The photometric requirements from Standard 108 that are proposed fo incorporation in Standard 215 have been the subject of several comments under Notice 10 in Dockets 1-9 and 1-20. The issue has not been resolved by issuance of a final rule and we will therefore consider your remarks as an addition to Chrysler's comments on Notice 10.; In the area of seat belt anchorages, the question of whether to us dynamic or static test methods was resolved in October 1970 by specifying a static test with a 10-second holding period. It was thought that this was the surest means of testing the basic strength of the metal and that it therefore carried out the original intent of the standard. Although it may be that the resulting anchorages are able to withstand barrier crashes at speeds considerably higher than 30 mph, we do not consider this to be sufficient cause for relaxing the anchorage requirement. If you have information concerning the force levels at which accidents are survivable, and the relation of these levels to anchorage strength, we would be glad to receive this information.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam1925OpenHonorable Carl Albert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Carl Albert Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Speaker: The purpose of this letter is to inform the committees on Interstat and Foreign Commerce and on Public Works and Transportation of recent activities and decisions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration relating to the establishment of a Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standard (UTQGS). We are pleased to announce that this standard, required by section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1423), was promulgated on May 20, 1975 (copy enclosed). The rule provides for grading tires in three areas: treadwear, traction, and temperature performance. I believe it will provide the consumer with the information he needs to determine which tire is the best value for him, considering his needs and driving habits.; As I am sure you are aware, we have had our share of problems i developing this rule. It had been our original intention to utilize a control tire against which other tires would be compared. In May of 1974, due to technical problems and time constraints imposed by the court in *Nash* v. *Brinegar*, Civil Action No. 17, D.C. (1974), the decision was made to attempt to utilize a control surface rather than a control tire. In order to investigate the feasibility of this approach, a section of runway at Goodfellow AFB, in San Angelo, Texas, was repaved, to provide a research control surface. At the outset of the research project the question had been raised regarding the applicability of section 301 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (which provides for specific approval by the above mentioned Committees of the House and their counterparts in the Senate, before constructing facilities for testing in traffic safety) to the construction of the control surfaces. It was then determined that since the action was a short-term effort, and in the nature of a feasibility study, section 301 was not applicable. This research project was successful and forms the basis of the rule.; We have recently obligated a sum of $75,000, in addition to th approximately $750,000 expended for the earlier research project (including $165,000 for the control surface), for the purpose of altering the control surfaces and nearby roadway to enable manufacturers to use these surfaces to meet the requirements of complying with the rule.; Even though the associated conversion costs were less than $100,000, w recognized that alterations to the surfaces in late FY 1976 and FY 1977 will cause total expenditures to rise above that level. Therefore, prior to proceeding with the recent site conversion effort, we focused again on the issue of the applicability of section 301. We determined that the section is inapplicable because the purpose of the control surface is to facilitate testing in a matter which is first and foremost consumer information rather than traffic safety, for, as stated in section 203 of the Act, UTQGS is established 'in order to assist the consumer to make an informed choice in the purchase of motor vehicle tires . . . .'; We will continue to keep you posted on the progress of the UTQGS a manufacturers begin testing. We expect to be able to provide the consumer with information in the near future which will enable him to make the best use of his tire dollars.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
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.