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: 11920.DRNOpen Mr. Richard Barbera Dear Mr. Barbera: This responds to your May 13, 1996, letter asking if the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) apply to your product, the "Fixcover." The Fixcover is a plastic disc that is designed to be attached to a motor vehicle wheel rim. You state that the Fixcover resembles a hub cap and when attached to a vehicle, "will stay in place and will not rotate even if the car is moving." You indicate that this enables any advertisement placed on the Fixcover to be legible at all times. NHTSA is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following opinion is based on the information in your letter. While the Fixcover is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any safety standards for such an item. You appear to believe that the Fixcover may have to meet Safety Standard No. 211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps. The standard would not apply, as the Fixcover incorporates no "winged projections." In any event, on May 6, 1996, NHTSA rescinded Standard No. 211, effective June 5, 1996. While no Federal safety standard applies to the Fixcover, you are subject to the provisions of sections 30118-10122 of our statute (at Title 49 of the United States Code) concerning the recall of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Other legal requirements may apply depending on how the Fixcover is sold. If the Fixcover were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would certify that the vehicle, with the Fixcover, meets all safety standards. In addition, if the Fixcover is installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business on a new or used vehicle, '30122(b) of our statute prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition subjects the violator to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Fixcover on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to somehow result in the vehicle no longer meeting a safety standard. However, NHTSA urges owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. In the enclosed information sheet, I direct your attention to the discussion on pages 2-3, of NHTSA's requirement that foreign manufacturers designate a permanent resident of the U.S. as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. While your letter states that you are a Swiss based company, you informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that you intend to manufacture the Fixcover in this country. If your company manufactures all Fixcover components in the U.S., it need not designate an agent. However, if your company imports any Fixcover component into the U.S., including the plastic cover and metal components that hold the cover to the vehicle, the foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in accordance with 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:211#VSA d:6/5/96
|
1996 |
ID: 11958-2.pjaOpen Mr. Bruce M. Gates Dear Mr. Gates: This responds to your May 22 and May 23, 1996, e-mails concerning the practice of some auto glass replacement companies of replacing windshields in used vehicles using a butyl tape. You believe that this practice is unsafe because the butyl tape withstands less pressure than the primers and urethane that your company uses, and that you say the vehicle manufacturers specify in their installation procedures. A provision in our statute (49 USC, Chapter 301) prohibits motor vehicle repair businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a motor vehicle standard . . . ." (30122(b)). You appear to be aware of that provision and that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has a longstanding position that the replacement of a damaged windshield is not a "making inoperative" with respect to the windshield mounting standard (Standard 212), regardless of the method used to maintain the integrity of the windshield. (See, e.g., enclosed October 5, 1983 letter to Mr. Anthony M. Peterson.) Section 30122(b) would not apply because the windshield mounting was already "inoperative" when it was brought to the repair shop. You ask us to reconsider this position, believing that vehicles have changed dramatically in the last decade, such as by having "air bags that deploy off the windshield and so many vehicles relying on Urethane to provide the necessary support to the roof structure . . . ." We are unable to agree that the "make inoperative" provision could require a replacement windshield to be installed as though it were new. The provision does not require repair businesses to ensure that damaged (or worn) systems brought in for repair perform better after repair than they did before repair. Assuming that the original urethane sealant was an element of design necessary to comply with the air bag or roof crush requirements, the element of design was already "made inoperative" when the vehicle was brought to the repair shop. While NHTSA does not currently regulate the use of butyl tape in windshield replacement, we want to find out more about the safety implications of the practice. Accordingly, we have forwarded your e-mail to our safety engineers for further consideration. Please call Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:205 d:8/15/96 |
1996 |
ID: 11986.ZTVOpen Herr Sandig Dear Herr Sandig: This replies to your FAX of May 28, 1996, asking whether a proposed design for a center highmounted stop lamp is a single lamp, within the meaning of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In this design, a rectangular lens is separated by an opaque oval that covers the center portion of the lens. However, the sum of the effective projected luminous lens areas left uncovered exceeds the minimum 4.5 square inches required by paragraph S5.1.1.27(a)(1) of Standard No. 108. This design does not comply with Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.1.1.27 (a) requires vehicles to be equipped with "a high-mounted stop lamp." Table IV requires the lamp to be located "on the vertical centerline." The opaque area in your design functionally divides the center lamp into two lamps, neither of which is located on the vertical centerline. In the past, the agency has advised that the lens of the center stop lamp may be obscured to a certain extent by decals or other trim, provided the minimum luminous lens area requirement was met, and the obscuration did not affect photometric compliance. These interpretations always assumed that the appearance of a single lamp would be maintained, even though the lens area itself did not present an uninterrupted light-emitting surface. Paragraph S5.1.1.27(b) does allow two separate lamps on vehicles other than passenger cars when there is insufficient space above doors opening from the center, but your lamp is not designed to address this problem. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:6/14/96 |
1996 |
ID: 11987.ZTVOpen Mr. Don Hannon Dear Mr. Hannon: This is in reply to your e-mail messages of May 24 and May 26, 1996, with respect to the importation of motorcycle taillamps. You inform us that a shipment of taillamps has been seized by the U.S. Customs Service on the grounds that, as you expressed it, "the company doesn't have a letter on file that states that we are authorized to import this commodity." You state that one of the part numbers seized by Customs are "restoration pieces that are meant to be used on pre-1964 motorcycles" while the other "probably needs some sort of DOT specs. on the lens since it is designed for use on 1973 & newer" motorcycles. You have asked what you need to do to import taillamps that meet DOT standards and how you may obtain information on those standards. This agency administers 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety and the regulations that have been issued under its authority, such as 49 C.F.R. 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. There is nothing in these laws that require an importer of motor vehicle equipment to obtain a letter from us stating that it is authorized to import motor vehicle equipment such as replacement taillamps. The obligation of the importer is to ensure that the product it wishes to import has been manufactured in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears the manufacturer's certification. This certification is either a DOT symbol on the item itself, or a label or tag attesting to compliance of the item, either on the item or on the container in which it is shipped. This requirement applies to replacement taillamps for use on motorcycles manufactured on and after January 1, 1972, and therefore applies to model years 1973 and later. The standard that applied in 1973 to motorcycle taillamps is SAE Standard J585c , Tail Lamps, June 1966. I enclose a copy for your information. Replacement taillamps for use on motorcycles manufactured before January 1, 1972, are not required to meet any Federal requirement in order to be imported and sold. Because these taillamps (particularly those for model years that occurred only shortly before 1972) may resemble those required to comply with Standard No. 108, it is understandable that Customs might seek to prevent their entry. In order to prevent confusion and possible violations by the importer, we recommend that such equipment be labeled as not for use on motorcycles manufactured on and after January 1, 1972. Your willingness to attach labels stating that the tail lamps are not "to be used on 1964-newer motorcycles" more than meets our recommendation, and we have no objection to your importing this equipment under this circumstance. Perhaps this assurance will be sufficient for Customs to release your merchandise after you have applied the labels to them. Under Chapter 301, a foreign manufacturer of lighting equipment is required to designate an agent in the United States for service of process . Because we do not know the name of your supplier, we do not know whether it has complied with this requirement. However, we do not understand that this is the type of letter that Customs feels is lacking. If you have any questions about this matter, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108#591 d:6/18/96 2
|
1996 |
ID: 11988.ogmOpen Mr. Rancy F. Snyder Dear Mr. Snyder: This is in response to your letter regarding requirements for seat belts on buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds. I apologize for the delay in providing you with a response. You ask if moving a seat belt receptacle for the operator's seating position from an inside position to an outside position would violate Federal motor vehicle safety standards, particularly Federal motor vehicle safety standards No.208, "Occupant Crash Protection" (Standard 208) and Federal motor vehicle safety standard 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard 209). The requirements for buses with a GVWR of over 10,000 pounds are found in S4.4 of Standard No.208. Most manufacturers meet this requirement by installing seat belts at the driver's position. Section S7.2(a)of Standard 208 requires that a seat belt assembly, other than an automatic belt, shall have a latch mechanism that is accessible to seated occupants in both the operational and stowed positions. However, Standard 208 does not require that the receptacle, which we assume is the female end or latch assembly, be positioned to the inside of the driver's seat. Your letter also makes reference to the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard 209) to your question. Standard 209 does not require that a bus have a seat belt assembly with the latch mounted to the inside of the driver's seat. In sum, neither Standard 208 or Standard 209 require that a seat belt assembly for a bus over 10,000 pounds have the latch assembly mounted to the inside of the driver's seat. Provided that such a seat belt assembly complies in all other respects with applicable requirements, a seat belt assembly provided for the driver of such a vehicle may have the receptacle mounted in a position outside of the driver's seat. If your question relates to modifying an existing design, you should be aware that after the first retail sale of a vehicle, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Therefore, any modifications to the existing seat belt system made by a business such as those listed above must be made in such a way so that the vehicle continues to conform to existing standards. Federal law does not prohibit owners of vehicles from making modifications that may impact on the vehicle's compliance with applicable standards. However, we urge any owner contemplating such modifications to take reasonable steps to ensure that essential safety systems, such as seat belts, are not compromised by any modifications. If you are considering any alterations to the seat belts, NHTSA urges you to contact the manufacturer of the bus to determine if such modifications can be made safely. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-5253. Sincerely, John Womack ref:208 |
1996 |
ID: 11989.mlsOpen Mr. Bradley J. Schnittjer Dear Mr. Schnittjer: This responds to your inquiry about whether your product, a piece of equipment that screens materials, is a motor vehicle. You state that your product can either be trailer mounted or skid mounted. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that your trailer typically stays at an off-road job site the majority of the time and is infrequently transported on the public roads between job sites. As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated. The statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows: "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." Whether the agency considers your trailer mounted equipment to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." Based on the available information, it appears that your equipment is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on your statements in the above mentioned telephone conversation that this equipment typically spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your equipment is not a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that your equipment used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your equipment is a motor vehicle, then it would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, while your vehicle is not required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you would need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Please note that trailers equipped with air brakes are required to comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567. Please note that since a State may require an off-road vehicle to be registered, you may wish to contact the States about the status of your equipment in their State. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:VSA d:8/5/96 |
1996 |
ID: 12-000762 W.Thompson III 9 Std. No. 108Open
William H. Thompson III 146 N. 58 St., Philadelphia, PA 19139
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This responds to your letter dated September 21, 2011. In that letter, you made inquiries regarding two subjects. First, you requested that NHTSA revisit its position in its previous letter to you (dated July 29, 2011).[1] That letter responded to your original request for an interpretation of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. In that letter, we explained our opinion that your invention, which alters the sequence in which school bus signal lamps will flash, would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. Second, you state that you are requesting the phase out of the four lamp system and the addition of the equivalent of the yellow traffic light function (as described in [your original request for interpretation]). We will address each of these requests in the following paragraphs.
(1) The July 29, 2011 Interpretation Letter In our July 2011 interpretation letter, we explained that because your invention would alter the standard lighting scheme of school bus signal lamps, it would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps. As we have explained on many occasions, traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with standardized lighting signals. In your letter requesting reconsideration of our interpretation, you made arguments specifically in regards to whether or not there is a standard message for the red school bus lamps. You noted that FMVSS No. 108 permits either an eight-lamp signal system (four red and four amber signal lamps) or a four-lamp signal system (four red signal lamps). You stated that, given the way that some states utilize the four-lamp signal system (e.g. the red lamps being activated prior to the stop location), there does not seem to be a standard message from the red warning lamps. You also asserted that your invention does not impair the effectiveness of the required lamps because the two original messages [of the required lamps] are now expanded to three distinct and complementary statements. While we have reviewed your arguments, they do not provide a basis for us to change our interpretation. The option for school buses to have either an eight-lamp or four-lamp signal system goes back to the 1960s. While motorists may, in light of this option, potentially encounter two types of school bus signal systems, school bus signal lamps are standardized to that extent and we believe that motorists are familiar with the messages imparted by these systems. Further, while the manner in which school bus owners utilize their vehicle lamps is a matter of state law, the message that the red lamps are intended to convey is clear and is specified in our regulations. The red lamps on school buses are required to conform with Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J887, July 1964 (incorporated by reference as part of FMVSS No. 108, S5.1.4(b)) which states that [s]chool bus red signal lamps are . . . intended to identify a vehicle as school bus and to inform other users of highway that such vehicle is stopped on highway to take on or discharge school children (emphasis added). According to your letter, your invention would alter the sequence in which school bus signal lamps flash (by including a stage of lighting where red and amber lights flash concurrently) for the purpose of providing a new kind of signal. It continues to be our opinion that this would, at the very least, impair the effectiveness of the red signal lamps by changing the standardized meaning of those lamps to mean something other than the meaning specified in SAE Standard J887. (2) Requested Changes to FMVSS No. 108
In your letter, you also recommended various changes to FMVSS No. 108s requirements for school bus signal lamps.
If you wish to petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108, you should submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to the requirements specified in 49 CFR Part 552. However, you should also be aware of the agencys Statement of Policy regarding petitions for rulemaking on signal lamps.[2] I am enclosing a copy of that document. Before submitting a petition to the agency, we recommend that you carefully review that Statement of Policy and make sure that you are submitting the kind of data necessary for us to evaluate your petition.
We thank you for your interest in improving safety for school children riding in school buses and the surrounding road users. If you have any further questions, please contact Jesse Chang (202-366-2992) of this office.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref: 108 Dated:5/31/12
[1] The agencys original response dated July 29, 2011 is available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/10-007285 S5-1-4 William H Thompson III 108 School Bus Lighting Interp Letter.htm. [2] This Statement of Policy was published in the Federal Register on November 4, 1998. See 63 FR 59482, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-11-04/pdf/98-29520.pdf. |
2012 |
ID: 12-001952 Matheny capacity includes driver (Standard No. 217)OpenMr. Larry W. Fowler Matheny Motors 3rd & Ann Streets P.O. Box 1304 Parkersburg, WV 26102-1304 Dear Mr. Fowler: This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. We apologize for the delay in responding; we regret that we did not receive the January 19, 2012 letter you had sent. You ask for clarification of the term seating capacity as used in Table 1 and Table 2 of FMVSS No. 217, i.e., whether the driver is considered part of the seating capacity of a bus for purposes of determining the additional emergency exits needed under S5.2.3 of the standard. As explained below, our answer is yes, the driver seat is included as part of the seating capacity. In 1992, FMVSS No. 217 was amended to revise the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits.[1] Instead of requiring all school buses to have the same number of exits, the standard was amended to establish minimum emergency exit space based on the seating capacity of each bus. The amendment determined the number of additional exits using a calculation that was based on the designated seating positions in the bus. Under our regulations, we consider a drivers seat to be a designated seating position.[2] In a 1995 amendment, NHTSA replaced the calculations with simple tables, including Tables 1 and 2.[3] The agency explained that the number of exits required by the tables would be derived from the existing requirement. There was no discussion of changing seating capacity to exclude the drivers seat. Thus, we interpret Tables 1 and 2 as simply reflecting the assumptions and calculations that were used previous to the tables. That being the case, seating capacity includes the drivers seat. It makes sense for seating capacity to include the drivers seat for purposes of Table 1 and 2. In an emergency, the driver will be among the occupants needing to exit the vehicle quickly. Including the drivers position in the calculation supports the goal of having sufficient exits to accommodate the occupants of the bus. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 8/14/12 Ref: Standard No. 217 |
2012 |
ID: 12-00245._ITA_Defective_Tire_ExportationOpenSarah L. Wilson Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-2401
Re: TREAD Act Provisions involving Defective Tires
Dear Ms. Wilson:
This letter responds to your January 19, 2012 letter on behalf of ITR USA, Inc. requesting an interpretation of certain provisions of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act, Pub. L. No. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800 et. seq. (2000) (TREAD Act). You ask for clarification regarding two requirements under the TREAD Act: the requirement in Section 7 that directs tire manufacturers, which includes importers, conducting recalls to include in their remedy program plans addressing how to prevent replaced tires from being resold for installation on a motor vehicle and the prohibition in Section 8 that forbids the sale or lease of motor vehicle equipment (including tires), for installation on a motor vehicle, that is the subject of a recall. Sections 7 and 8 have been codified in 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and (j), respectively.
You ask three questions: (1) Do 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and (j) and 49 CFR 573.12 prohibit the export of recalled, defective or noncompliant tires for resale in foreign countries for use on a motor vehicle? (2) Must recalled tires be incapacitated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9)(ii)(A) by means of permanent physical alteration (e.g., by cutting a hole in their sidewalls) or would cosmetic alteration (e.g., removal of Department of Transportation identification numbers) be sufficient? And (3) May a manufacturer dispose of recalled tires pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9)(iii) by exporting them for either vehicular or non-vehicular use?
A brief background on the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended including by the TREAD Act (as amended, the Safety Act) will be helpful in understanding these TREAD Act requirements.
The TREAD Act and Regulation of Tire Recalls.
The Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that do not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) or contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(c).
One part of a recall is the remedy program. See 49 U.S.C. 30120. Under the Safety Act, both the fabricating manufacturer and the importer of vehicles and equipment are responsible for implementing a recall. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5), 49 CFR 573.5.
Congress passed the TREAD Act in 2000, in part, as a reaction to congressional concerns related to tire recalls conducted by Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. See 66 Fed. Reg. 65165 (Dec. 18, 2001). As reflected in your letter, the TREAD Act addresses the sale of recalled tires that are noncompliant or contain a safety-related defect. 49 U.S.C. 30120(j) prohibits the sale or lease of any motor vehicle equipment (including a tire) for installation on a motor vehicle, that is subject to a recall under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) or (c) in a condition that the equipment may be reasonably used for its original purpose. There are two limited exceptions to this prohibition: (1) the defect or noncompliance is remedied as required by 30120 before delivery under the sale or lease, or (2) notification of the defect or noncompliance is required under 30118(b) but enforcement of the order is set aside in a civil action. 49 U.S.C. 30120(j)(1) and (2). In addition, 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) addresses remedies. It provides, in part: In the case of a remedy program involving the replacement of tires, the manufacturer shall include a plan addressing how to prevent, to the extent reasonably within the control of the manufacturer, replaced tires from being resold for installation on motor vehicles . . . .
The regulations implementing 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) address the sale of defective tires more particularly. 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9) specifies a number of requirements on a manufacturers remedy program for replacement of defective or noncompliant tires. To begin, the manufacturers plan must address how the manufacturer will assure that the entities replacing tires are aware of legal requirements. A manufacturer must notify its owned stores and distributors, as well as independent outlets that are authorized to replace the tires that are subject to the recall, about the ban on sales of new defective or noncompliant tires (49 CFR 573.11), the prohibition on the sale of new and used defective and noncompliant tires (49 CFR 573.12), and the duty to notify NHTSA of any sale of a new or used recalled tire for use on a motor vehicle (49 CFR 573.10). 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9)(i). In addition, the manufacturers remedy program must address how it will prevent, to the extent reasonably within its control, the recalled tires from being resold for installation on a motor vehicle. 573.6(c)(9)(ii). The plan must include written directions to alter the recalled tires permanently so that they cannot be used on a motor vehicle. See 573.6(c)(9)(ii)(A), (B) and (C).
In addition to preventing recalled tires from being installed on motor vehicles, the TREAD Act also sought to limit, to the extent reasonably within the control of the manufacturer, the disposal of recalled tires in landfills, particularly through shredding, crumbling, recycling, recovery, and other alternative-beneficial non-vehicular uses. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(d); 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9) (implementing regulations). A. Exporting recalled tires for use on a motor vehicle. Your first question asks: Do 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and (j) and 49 CFR 573.12 prohibit the export of recalled, defective or noncompliant tires for resale in foreign countries for use on a motor vehicle? As noted above, 49 U.S.C. 30120(j) explicitly prohibits the sale or lease of any motor vehicle equipment, including a tire, for installation on a motor vehicle that is subject to a recall. There are only two narrow exceptions, which arise if the defect or noncompliance is remedied or enforcement of the recall notice has been set aside in a civil action. 49 U.S.C. 30120(j)(1) and (2). Section 30120(j) clearly prohibits any sale or lease of a recalled tire, including an export that involves a sale, in a condition in which it can be used on a vehicle. In as much as this is a remedial provision, the term sale would be construed broadly.
NHTSAs multifaceted approach to implementing Section 30120(d) reflects the broad thrust of this program including the imperative of insuring that recalled tires do not end up being installed on vehicles. The manufacturers recall remedy plan must provide for incapacitation of the recalled tire. The plan must address how the manufacturer will prevent, to the extent reasonably within its control, replaced tires from being resold for installation on a motor vehicle. This includes written directions to manufacturer owned and controlled outlets to alter the recalled tires permanently so that they cannot be used on vehicles, including incapacitation of each recalled tire within 24 hours of receipt of the recalled tire at the outlet. In addition, written guidance is to be given to other outlets on how to alter the recalled tires promptly and permanently so that they cannot be used on vehicles. In the course of the rulemaking, NHTSA considered a petition for reconsideration to delete the requirement for prompt incapacitation of recalled tires. As the agency stated: For safety reasons, we have decided to retain a requirement for prompt incapacitation of returned recalled tires by retail outlets and others under the manufacturers control that receive such tires. 69 Fed. Reg. 50077, 50079 (Aug. 13, 2004). NHTSA explained: [w]e agree with [a commenter] that the best mechanism for ensuring that recalled tires are not reinstalled on vehicles (inadvertently or otherwise) is for prompt destruction of those tires. Id. at 50081.
Allowing a manufacturer to export recalled tires for resale in a foreign country would circumvent and undermine NHTSAs program, which implements 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and (j). It would not ensure that recalled tires are not installed on vehicles. Unaltered defective tires exported by the manufacturer could be diverted to re-enter the stream of commerce or, if exported, could re-enter this country. Recalled tires would be resold for installation on a motor vehicle. Accordingly, the export of recalled defective or noncompliant tires for resale in foreign countries for use on a motor vehicle is prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and (j). B. Incapacitating tires by physical alteration. Second, you ask whether recalled tires must be incapacitated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9)(ii)(A) by means of permanent physical alteration, or instead, whether cosmetic alteration is sufficient. As explained above, the TREAD Act requires manufacturers to develop a plan that addresses how they will prevent, within the extent reasonably within their control, recalled tires from being resold for installation on a motor vehicle. NHTSAs regulations require tire manufacturers to direct their owned and controlled outlets, and to provide written guidance to all other outlets, to alter or incapacitate the recalled tires promptly and permanently so that they cannot be used on vehicles. See 573.6(c)(9)(ii)(A)-B. Incapacitation in this context refers to the
destruction of those tires. 69 Fed. Reg. 50077, 50081 (Aug. 13, 2004). See also 66 Fed. Reg. at 65169 (alteration includes drilling substantial holes in the sidewalls, cutting the tire beads, or sawing the tires in half).
Cosmetic alterations, such as removing the DOT identification number, do not satisfy the agencys regulations. Cosmetic changes leave the tire functionally unchanged, allowing a recalled tire to be installed on a motor vehicle, whether inadvertently or otherwise. In addition, without identification numbers, potential dealers or purchasers may be unable to determine whether the tires were recalled. Accordingly, only functional incapacitation of unremedied recalled tires meets the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9)(ii)(A).
C. Disposal of recalled tires by exporting for either vehicular or non-vehicular use. Last, you ask whether a manufacturer may dispose of recalled tires pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9)(iii) by exporting them for either vehicular or non-vehicular use. As explained above, exporting unremedied recalled defective or noncompliant tires for resale in foreign countries for use on a motor vehicle in a condition that the tire may be reasonably used for its original purpose is prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and (j) and 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9)(iii). Similarly, this prohibition may not be circumvented by labeling such exportation of recalled tires that have not been incapacitated as disposal. This prohibition on exporting tires that have not been incapacitated does not foreclose the disposal of incapacitated tires for non-vehicular use. For example, the incapacitated tires might be shredded and used in various ways. See 69 Fed. Reg. at 50082 ([T]he market conditions for recycling may change from time to time, and it would be inadvisable for us to advocate particular uses over others when those uses might become commercially infeasible, or when additional uses might subsequently be developed . . . . For these reasons, we are leaving the choice of beneficial non-vehicular reuse applications to manufacturers.). See also 66 Fed. Reg. at 65167 (discussing possible uses for scrap tires). If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Nicholas Englund, Litigation and Enforcement Attorney, the Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-5263.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
d: 10/3/12 |
|
ID: 12-003091 Giordano (Std. No 120)OpenMr. Paul Giordano Manager New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission Bus Unit 225 East State St. (4E) P.O. Box 680 Trenton, NJ 08666-0680 Dear Mr. Giordano: This letter responds to your request for clarification regarding the relationship between the certification label and the tire selection requirements for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, which relates to tire selection and rims. We are pleased to provide the following clarification. We begin by clarifying NHTSAs regulatory authority. NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The FMVSSs are applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has limited authority to regulate changes made to a vehicle after its first retail sale. There is a make inoperative provision (49 USC 30122(b)) that prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative, in whole or in part, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Because your inquiry relates to school buses, State laws and regulations would determine any obligations school bus owners and operators have regarding on-road use of school buses. Additionally, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) may regulate some school buses that are used for commercial purposes. I can offer an opinion only on matters within NHTSAs regulatory authority in this case, NHTSAs new vehicle standards. I cannot opine on the applicability of State laws or how NHTSAs new vehicle regulations relate to States or FMCSAs regulation of in-service vehicles. As set forth in 49 CFR section 567.4, motor vehicle manufacturers are required to affix to each vehicle a permanent label certifying compliance with the FMVSSs. Among the statements required by paragraph (g) of that section to be on the label is the vehicles GVWR and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), in pounds, for each axle. That label identifies the tire size designation associated with the GAWR. FMVSS No. 120 requires that motor vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds must be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 109, 119, or 139 (all of which provide standards for tires) that are identified as suitable for that rim, as listed in the publication of an approved tire organization or as provided to NHTSA by the tire manufacturer. As you note in your letter, paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall not be less than the GAWR of the axle system as specified in the certification label. Vehicles that cannot attain a speed of 50 mph (80 km/h) are excepted from this requirement. In your request, you cite the example of a school bus with a certification label stating that the vehicles GVWR is 31,000 pounds. The GAWR of the front axle is listed as 12,000 pounds with size 11R22.5(G) tires, and the GAWR of the rear axle is listed as 19,000 pounds with 11R22.5(G) tires in a dual configuration. The (G) designation reflects the load range of the tire. You state that the vehicle in question has two 11R22.5(G) tires mounted on the front axle, but has four 11R22.5(F) tires mounted on the rear axle (which you presume were not installed by the original manufacturer). The (F) designation shows that, although the rear tires are the same size as the front tires, they have a lower load carrying capability. According to information from the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, the maximum load of each 11R22.5(G) tire is 5,840 pounds mounted in dual use at the maximum inflation pressure of 105 psi. The maximum load of each 11R22.5(F) tire is 5,205 pounds mounted in dual use at the maximum inflation pressure of 90 psi. You note that the total load ratings of the tires fitted to the rear axle is 20,820 pounds (two pairs of tires mounted in dual use rated at 5,205 pounds each), which exceeds the rear axle GAWR of 19,000 pounds. You state that this satisfies the requirement in S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120 that the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle must be at least the GAWR specified on the certification label. Nevertheless, you ask whether the tire size must be exactly what is stated on the certification label or whether it is sufficient to meet the requirement in S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120. As indicated at the beginning of this letter, we will address whether the tires at issue could have been installed on the vehicle at the time of first sale. The answer is yes. The tires, for a vehicle of this type and GVWR, need not be the exact tire size and load range set forth on the vehicles certification label provided: (1) The size of the tire matches the rim mounted on the vehicle and (2) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle is at least the GAWR of the axle system, as required by S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120. For example, in the example you raise, it would be acceptable to install the load range F tires on the rear axle of the vehicle because the maximum load carrying capability of the four load range F tires is greater than the GAWR of the axle. We note that S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120 considers the circumstance where the size designation of the tires installed on the vehicle does not appear on the certification label.[1] In that event, S5.1.2 requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to the axle shall not be less than the lowest GAWR appearing on the label. Although there would not be issues with compliance with FMVSS No. 120 as a result of installing tires with a lower load rating than the tires listed on the certification label (provided the sum of the load ratings of the tires installed on each axle is at least the axles GAWR), there may be a safety consequence. In the example you gave, the maximum inflation pressure of the same size load range F and load range G tires is different. The load range G tire has a maximum inflation pressure of 105 psi, whereas the load range F tire has a maximum inflation pressure of 90 psi. That is, the maximum inflation pressure of the rear tire is lower than the recommended inflation pressure on the certification label. In order not to operate on overinflated tires, the operator of the vehicle would have to recognize that the rear tires have a lower maximum inflation pressure. The operator would also have to take care to prevent underinflation, which also may pose a risk because underinflation would reduce the tires load carrying capability. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Dated: 8/10/12 Ref: Standard No. 120 [1] We also refer you to the parenthetical in S5.3.1 and S5.3.2 of FMVSS No. 120, which states that the tire and rim size designation on the tire information label is not necessarily for the tires and rims on the vehicle. |
2012 |
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.