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: 8951Open Mr. C.N. Littler Dear Mr. Littler: This responds to your FAX and phone call of July 30, 1993 to Mary Versailles of my office. Your FAX enclosed information on a vehicle, the AMF Invader, which is built on a remanufactured MCI chassis, and advertised and sold as a new vehicle. You do not believe that such a vehicle should be considered a new vehicle. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, we can explain whether such a vehicle would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the implications of such a determination. I suggest you also contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it is appropriate to advertise this vehicle as new. To determine whether this vehicle can be titled and registered as new, you would have to contact the various states concerning their laws. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. After a vehicle's first retail sale, a provision affecting its modification is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) which provides: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. It is possible that modifications on an existing vehicle may be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle for purposes of compliance with the safety standards. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such modifications were completed. The agency has stated that a bus built with a new body is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle (see, for example, August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer). The agency has also stated that a bus constructed from an old body and a new chassis is a new vehicle (see, for example, July 17, 1981 letter to Mr. Larry Louderback). When neither the body nor the chassis are completely new, the agency looks to see if the vehicle has so deviated from the original components and attributes that it may be considered a new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a used vehicle (see, for example, April 22, 1991 letter to Mr. Kent Morris). You enclosed an article titled "The New Invader" from the August 1993 issue of National Bus Trader magazine. The manufacturing process for the Invader is described beginning on page 14. Page 16 of this article states, "the Invader is supplied with a new engine," but the article does not contain enough information to determine whether the vehicle, which includes both new and old parts, would be considered new. If the Invader has a new body, NHTSA would considered the vehicle to be new if the chassis lacks the used components referenced in the Farmer letter. Any new vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture before the vehicle can be sold in the United States. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: AMF 1830 LeBer Street, Montreal Quebec, Canada H3K 2A4 ref:571 d:1/10/94 |
1994 |
ID: 11539ZTVOpen Mr. Paul W. Neagle, P.E. Dear Mr. Neagle: We have received your letter of February 1, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to lighting on the rear of trailers. Your company has developed a new system to attach a transportable forklift to a trailer. When installed on some trailers, "it requires the tail/brake/turn lights to be mounted more toward the center of the trailer, similar to many dump truck applications." A trailer manufacturer has asked you to confirm "that this lighting follows the requirements that the tail/brake/turn lights be mounted as far apart as practicable." It is apparent from your letter, product brochure, and photo that the specific purpose of the trailer is to carry the forklift, and, therefore, that the forklift is part of the trailer's normal equipment. Under S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, when motor vehicle equipment prevents compliance with the visibility or photometric requirements of the standard by any required lamp or reflective device, an auxiliary lamp or device may be provided to meet these requirements. We note that the forklift is equipped with conspicuity marking which will be visible from the side of the trailer when it is carried on the trailer, as well as well as a red rear side reflector. There appear to be additional lamps and reflectors on the rear of the forklift, although this is not clearly indicated. We believe that compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 108 for certification purposes must be determined with the forklift installed (the photo you enclosed appears to depict the trailer without the forklift). However, because the trailer can be used without the forklift, care should be taken to ensure that the trailer carries the full complement of trailer lighting and marking equipment specified in Standard No. 108 when the forklift is removed. You are correct that Standard No. 108 requires taillamps, stop lamps and turn signal lamps to be mounted "as far apart as practicable". The word "practicable" was chosen by NHTSA in order to afford manufacturers maximum flexibility in designing their products for specific end needs. When a manufacturer has determined that these lamps, on any specific vehicle, are "as far apart as practicable" with respect to that vehicle, then the manufacturer may certify compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards including Standard No. 108. NHTSA will not contest that certification unless it is clearly erroneous. NHTSA recognizes that required lamps mounted on the rear of a narrow forklift which is part of a trailer's rear lighting equipment may be mounted closer to the vehicle's vertical centerline than would be the case with trailers of a more conventional configuration, and that it might not be practicable to locate them at a wider distance from the centerline. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263). Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/96
|
1996 |
ID: 2500yOpen Normand Laurendeau, Esq. Dear Mr. Laurendeau: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your client, who distributes auto glass parts in Canada. You had two questions regarding your client's status as an "intermediate" in the motor vehicle industry. Before I address your specific questions, I believe some background information about this agency may be of assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a company offering an item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States must designate an agent within this country for service of process. Your letter describes your client as "one of the major distributors of auto glass parts in all of Canada." Your letter states that your client's customers demand that your client "certifies all glasses shipped with D.O.T. number AS1 or AS2 for domestic and export purposes in all countries." I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter. Your first question was whether your client, as a distributor of automotive safety glass, needs a D.O.T. number to operate in the United States. The answer to this question depends on what role your client has in the process that results in glazing being sold to the customer. The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles. S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials. The marking and certification requirements differ, depending upon whether your client is a "prime glazing material manufacturer" or simply a manufacturer or distributor. A "prime glazing material manufacturer" is defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If your client performs any of these operations, it must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205. S6.1 requires every prime glazing material manufacturer to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "ANS Z26). S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper by adding to the mark required by S6.1 the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by this agency. S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles pursuant to the requirements of section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403). Assuming that your client would not be considered a "prime glazing material manufacturer," but is simply a distributor, it would not need to be assigned a DOT number pursuant to S6.2 of Standard No. 205. In your letter, however, you incorrectly identified the codes AS1 and AS2 as DOT numbers. Those codes are required on glazing materials by section 6 of ANS Z26. As explained below, your client may be required to add such markings to glazing materials, even if your client is only considered a distributor for the purposes of Standard No. 205. Each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing that are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with section 114 of the Safety Act (S6.5). Your second question asked about the potential liability of a distributor for the certification of automotive safety glazing for importation into the United States. If your client is required to certify glazing it distributes pursuant to the provisions in either S6.2, S6.3, or S6.5 of Standard No. 205, the failure to so certify would be a violation of the standard. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides 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 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 ... Thus, if your client is required by Standard No. 205 to certify some glazing it distributes, the failure to make such a certification would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act. Even if your client is not required to certify the glazing it distributes pursuant to Standard No. 205, section 114 of the Safety Act requires every distributor of motor vehicle equipment (such as glazing) to furnish a certification. Section 114 provides: Every manufacturer or distributor of ... motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such ... equipment by such ... distributor the certification that each such ... item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered. Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall fail to issue a certificate required by section 114, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) provides that any violations of section 108 subject the violator to a civil penalty of not to exceed $1,000 for each such violation, up to a maximum penalty of $800,000. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure /ref:205#VSA d:6/l4/90 |
1970 |
ID: 2780yOpen Mr. Mitch L. Williams Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reply to your letters of November 1 and 8 to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. In your letter of November 1 you ask "How would NHTSA view the addition of a rear spoiler with integrated third rear brake light to a vehicle already originally equipped with a third rear brake light?" There are two relevant provisions of Standard No. 108 that deal with your question. The first is relevant if installation of the spoiler prevents the original lamp from meeting the photometric or visibility requirements of Standard No. l08. If this occurs, compliance may be maintained by installing another center high-mounted lamp that meets all requirements of Standard No. l08. See S5.3.1.1. Presumably, the lamp in the spoiler is designed, or could be designed, to comply to all applicable requirements. A further question is whether two center high-mounted stop lamps are permissible. An auxiliary lamp is prohibited by S5.1.3 if it impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. One example of impairment is when the auxiliary lamp creates confusion as to the function of the original lamp. The motoring public is used to seeing only one center lamp in operation. Although we cannot reach a definitive conclusion that an auxiliary center stop lamp would impair the effectiveness of the original center stop lamp, it would probably be prudent to ensure that there is only one center stop lamp in operation. Thus, if the spoiler lamp complies with Standard No. l08, the original lamp may be disconnected. If the spoiler lamp does not comply with Standard No. l08 and the original lamp remains in compliance with Standard No. 108, the question of impairment arises. On balance, it would appear unlikely that impairment would result from this configuration. In your letter of November 8 you ask several questions with respect to the installation of center high-mounted stop lamps on pickup trucks. On May 31, l990, NHTSA proposed that the lamp be installed on pickup trucks and some other types of vehicles as well. We anticipate publishing a final rule on this issue in the Federal Register in the near future. The preamble to the rule will address your questions on location of the lamp. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:12/24/90 |
1990 |
ID: nht90-2.77OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/11/90 FROM: RALPH H. SHEPPARD -- ADDUCI, MASTRIANI, MEEKS & SCHILL TO: TAYLOR VINSON; PAUL JACKSON RICE, ESQ. -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION TITLE: IMPORTATION OF A NON-CONFORMING VOLVO CAB CHASSIS INTENDED FOR RE-EXPORT TO SWEDEN OUR FILE: BAF-001 ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/22/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO RALPH H. SHEPPARD; A35, PART 591 TEXT: This letter follows my telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson, Esq., of your office, regarding the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements with regard to importation of a non-conforming Volvo truck cab chassis manufactured in Belgium pursuant to Swedish environmental and safety standards. As discussed with Mr. Vinson, the vehicle would be presented to the U.S. Customs Service as a temporary importation under bond (TIB) entry at the time of its arrival. Once the vehicle is in the United States, our client, BAF Communications Corporation, or Peabody, Massachusetts (hereafter "BAF") will install a passenger and equipment box on the rear of the cab chassis, and then install various telecommunications eq uipment in order to equip the vehicle as a mobile television transmission facility. Upon completion, anticipated within 90 days of importation, the vehicle will be re-exported to Sweden, for use there by our clients' customer, Comvik Skyport of Sollentun a, Sweden. As I indicated in my telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson, we request your priority consideration of the appropriate DOT Waiver criteria for this transaction, which involves pending importation. Based on our review of the regulations, and their sta tutory intent, we believe that a waiver of DOT requirements for this vehicle is warranted under any one of four different waiver options itemized on DOT Form HS-7. First, under item 4, since this vehicle is intended solely for re-export after the additi on of the box and telecommunications equipment, and all applicable shipping documents and entry documents will so indicate, we believe waiver is warranted under Section 591.5(c) of your regulations. Second, the president of the Swedish company, the ulti mate purchaser of the completed vehicle, and a non-resident of the United States, is prepared to certify that the vehicle would be imported solely for the purpose of the addition of the various equipment, that it will not be sold during its time here, an d that it will be exported within the time provided in the regulation, and therefore is entitled to a waiver under regulation section 591.5(d). Third, under item 8, the vehicle would be eligible for a waiver under that provision as well since the vehicle is not manufactured primarily for use on the U.S. public roads and therefore is not a motor vehicle subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Bumper and Theft Protection Standards. Finally, pursuant to item 9 of the form HS-7, "the vehicle requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended functions", and will be exported after the further manufacturing operations are accomplis hed. Since the above-described vehicle is not intended for permanent use in the United States, we believe that the letter and spirit of the various laws enforced by the Department of Transportation support waiver of those provisions with regard to vehicles such as this which are imported for customizing work, and solely intended for re-exportation. Needless to say, such operations benefit the United States, by permitting U.S. businesses to contract for work on such vehicles, bringing in valuable funds re lated to the services and equipment provided, thus helping improve the U.S. trade deficit. We do not believe that the regulations should be enforced in a way which has a chilling effect on the ability of U.S. businesses to remain competitive with foreig n companies performing similar customizing operations. Accordingly, we request that you clarify the Department of Transportation requirements with regard to the above-described transaction, and confirm that the vehicle would be permitted entry, subject to subsequent re-exportation under one of the four wa iver criteria outlined above. We look forward to your expedited consideration of this matter, and ask that you immediately contact us at (212) 949-7120 if there are any questions regarding our request. Further, upon formulating a response to our letter, please transmit that respo nse by facsimile to (212) 949-7271, rather than relying on normal mail delivery. |
|
ID: 08_003193 Martini--14 Nov 08--saOpenMr. Gianni Martini Superauto F.lli Biondi Srl, Homologation Department Via Ponte a Giogoli 21 50019 Sesto F.no (FI) Italy Dear Mr. Martini: This responds to your letter asking about the obligations of a foreign motorcycle windshield manufacturer under the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I appreciate this opportunity to respond. Your letter explains that you purchase plane sheets of a polycarbonate material produced by General Electric (GE), then thermoform the material and sell the pieces in Italy to a motorcycle manufacturer which exports motorcycles to the United States. We assume you mean that you purchase large sheets of GE polycarbonate and then use heat to form or mold the polycarbonate into motorcycle windshields which you sell to your customer. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and regulated equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. For your information, we are enclosing a fact sheet entitled, Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, which directs you to the FMVSSs and regulations. Pursuant to NHTSAs statutory authority, we established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies strength and light transmittance performance requirements for various types of glazing used in motor vehicles, including motorcycle windshields (copy enclosed). FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (ANSI Z26.1).[1] FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing (called Items), and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. Section S6 of FMVSS No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing material. Different marking and certification requirements apply depending on whether a person is a prime glazing manufacturer, which is defined in S4 of the standard as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers glazing materials, or a manufacturer cutting sections of glazing originally produced by someone else. NHTSA would consider you to be a prime glazing manufacturer because forming or molding polycarbonate is considered fabricating. Section S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 specifies that prime glazing manufacturers certify that their products comply with FMVSS No. 205 by marking the glazing in accordance with section 7 of ANSI Z26.1, and adding to those markings in letters and numerals of the same size, the symbol DOT and a manufacturers code mark that NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer. Under S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205, NHTSA will assign a code mark to a manufacturer after the manufacturer submits a written request to the NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. You can submit your request for a code mark to the following address: NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The above certification requirements essentially apply to you as follows. Even though GE certified its polycarbonate sheets as complying with FMVSS No. 205, after forming the polycarbonate into the shape of the windshield you are selling, you as a prime glazing manufacturer must certify that the glazing continues to meet all applicable requirements of the standard. Each of NHTSAs safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. To provide a basis for its certification of compliance, a prime glazing manufacturer may choose any valid means of evaluating its procedures to determine whether the glazing complies with FMVSS No. 205 (e.g., through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means). However, the manufacturer must ensure that the product will meet FMVSS No. 205 when tested by NHTSA using the test procedures and conditions specified in the standard. Further, NHTSA may require a manufacturer to provide the data it used to determine whether the glazing material met FMVSS No. 205 requirements. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your glazing is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) In addition, a manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that the equipment did not comply. What constitutes reasonable care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts. In addition to the requirements described above, please note that your manufacture of glazing materials may also be affected by NHTSA's longstanding interpretation of our regulation on manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566; copy enclosed), if the motorcycle manufacturer sells motorcycles equipped with your windshields in this country. We require a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (covered equipment, e.g., glazing products) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of the equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which the equipment manufacturer supplies its products. NHTSA has interpreted Part 566 to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplying their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the United States. Please note that you are not required to designate an agent for service of process under 49 CFR Part 551 (Subpart D), if you supply your products only to a foreign vehicle manufacturer. This is the case even if the foreign vehicle manufacturer installs your products on vehicles that will be sold in the United States. However, please keep in mind that you must designate an agent under Part 551 if you decide to offer your equipment for importation into the United States. Last, you ask about a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) form MCS-150. FMCSA is the agency in the Department of Transportation that is responsible for regulations concerning the operation of commercial motor vehicles. Companies that operate commercial vehicles transporting passengers or hauling cargo in interstate commerce must be registered with FMCSA and must have a US DOT Number, and form MCS-150 is an application form for a US DOT number. If you want further information about the form, please contact FMCSA at 1-800-832-5660 or www.fmcsa.dot.gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:205 d.1/16/09 [1] You can obtain a copy of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. |
2009 |
ID: nht75-4.16OpenDATE: 11/10/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Mountain States Tires Dealers Association TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 1, 1975, which included a list of information items you believe are required to appear on retreaded tires pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires. With the following qualifications, your list is correct: 1. The tire must be labeled with the symbol "DOT" followed by the letter "R", and other information required by 49 CFR Part 574.5, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, as a certification that the tire complies with Standard No. 117. This requirement is distinct from and in addition to the requirement that the casing retain the "DOT" symbol from its original manufacture. 2. The words "bias/belted" are not required, because the actual number of plies in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area, are now required to appear. 3. Tube-type and tubeless tires must be labeled with the specific words "tube-type" and "tubeless", respectively. 4. The items listed in your third group may appear on a paper label only if that label is not easily removable. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 117. YOURS TRULY, MOUNTAIN STATES TIRE DEALERS ASSOCIATION May 1, 1975 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration From various sources, it is our understanding that after May 12, 1975, the following requirements must be met in retreading passenger car tires: To be processed the casing must have on it from the original manufacturer The symbol "DOT" The tire size Number of plies or ply rating The completed retread must be permanently marked in at least one location with letters of a minimum of .078 inches high with the following: Maximum Load Actual number of plies in sidewall and tread, if different Name of cord in sidewall and in tread area if different The completed retread must also have this information on it, either with a permanent label, paper label or retained on the casing: Size Tube or Tubeless Mamimum Inflation Bias belted or Radial Please advise us as soon as possible if the above information is correct so that we may have current, proper and accurate information for our members. Claud Riggs, Exec. Secy. |
|
ID: 17692.wkmOpenMr. John White Dear Mr. White: This responds to your letter of March 30, 1998, to Walter Myers of my staff and Mr. Myers' telephone conversation of April 7, 1998, with your foreman, Jerry. You stated that your company builds and repairs hopper bottom trailers used for hauling grain. You equip your trailers with used undercarriages, including axles, brakes, and suspensions, which you mount on new frames and beds. You asked whether your trailers are required to comply with the antilock brake system requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer depends on the particular facts of your operation. The agency's regulation with regard to combining new and used components in assembling trailers is found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.7(f), Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture (copy enclosed), which provides in pertinent part:
By its terms, therefore, subsection 571.7(f) applies to situations in which new components are combined with used components in the assembly of a trailer. Specifically, the trailer will be considered new unless, at a minimum, the axle(s), wheels, brakes, and suspension are not only not new, but must have been taken from an existing trailer. Moreover, the vehicle identification number of the existing trailer must be continued in the reassembled trailer and both must have been owned or leased by the user of the reassembled trailer. Unless all these conditions are met, the trailer is considered new and must be certified to all applicable standards, including the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567 (copy enclosed). For your additional information, I am enclosing fact sheets entitled Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 10-004142 -- Toyota CAFE credit transfer banking -- 5 Jul 11 final for signatureOpenTom Stricker Director-Corporate Manager Toyota Motor North America, Inc. Suite 910 South 601 13th Street, NW Dear Mr. Stricker: This responds to your letter dated June 10, 2010 concerning the definition of the term transfer, as used in relation to Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) credits. You asked several questions relating to the revision to the definition of transfer in the April 2010 final rule establishing CAFE standards for model years 2012-2016. By way of background, credits are earned by automobile manufacturers for over-compliance with passenger car and light truck CAFE standards, and may be used by the manufacturer to make up shortfalls in different model years and different compliance categories, subject to certain statutory and regulatory constraints, and may also be provided to or acquired from other manufacturers. Manufacturers have been able to carry-forward[1] and carry-back[2] CAFE credits since the early 1980s, but NHTSA only gained authority to permit credit trading and transferring as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007.[3] NHTSA established 49 CFR Part 536 in 2009 to implement a program pursuant to this authority, and defined credit transfer as the application by a manufacturer of credits earned by that manufacturer in one compliance category [domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars, light trucks] or credits acquired by trade (and originally earned by another manufacturer in that category) to achieve compliance with fuel economy standards with respect to a different compliance category. For example, a manufacturer may purchase light truck credits from another manufacturer, and transfer them to achieve compliance in the manufacturers domestically manufactured passenger car fleet.[4] As a way to improve the transferring flexibility mechanism for manufacturers, as part of the rulemaking establishing CAFE standards for MYs 2012-2016, NHTSA clarified its interpretation of EISA, saying that EISA allowed the banking of credits for use in later model years. The agency amended the definition of transfer accordingly. Specifically, we added the following sentence to the end of the above definition of transfer: Subject to the credit transfer limitations of 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3), credits can also be transferred across compliance categories and banked or saved in that category to be carried forward or backward later to address a credit shortfall.[5] You have asked several questions with regard to this revision to the definition of credit transfer, which we will answer in turn below. 1. Does the revised definition apply to MY 2011 and later credits, and may such credits be transferred across compliance categories in the same or later model year and banked or saved in that compliance category, subject to the limitations specified by 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor specified at 49 CFR 536.4(c)? Answer: Yes, this is correct. We note that credits are not adjusted until they are actually used for compliance purposes. See 49 CFR 536.4(c) and 536.5(d)(5). 2. Once transferred, are such credits considered to be credits within the compliance category to which they were transferred, and may they be applied without further adjustment, in the same manner as a credit that was generated as a result of over-compliance in that compliance category? Answer: No, this is incorrect. 49 CFR 536.4(c) states clearly that the adjustment factor is applied to credits when traded or transferred and used, and 536.5(d)(5) similarly states that the value of traded or transferred credits is adjusted when used for compliance. (Emphasis added.) Thus, when credits are transferred and banked, they are simply stored in the compliance category to which they are transferred, but they retain their original character and value until they are used for compliance, at which time they are adjusted. 3. Does 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) limit the credits that can be transferred into a compliance category in a given model year? Answer: 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) limits the maximum CAFE increase in any compliance category attributable to the application of credits earned in a different compliance category to 1.0 mpg for model years 2011-2013; to 1.5 mpg for model years 2014-2017; and to 2.0 for model years 2018 and beyond. The statute does not limit how many credits may be transferred in a given model year, rather it limits the application of transferred credits to improve fuel economy in a compliance category. Thus, manufacturers may transfer as many credits into a compliance category as they wish, but transferred credits may not increase a manufacturers CAFE level beyond the statutory limits. 4. Given the transfer cap in 32903(g)(3), is there a limit on how many credits can be transferred out of a compliance category in a given model year, or a limit on transferring credits from one compliance category to multiple compliance categories in the same model year or across model years, as long as the transfer cap in 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c) are not violated? Answer: Again, manufacturers may transfer as many credits out of a compliance category to either of the other compliance categories as they wish, but transferred credits may not increase a manufacturers CAFE level beyond the statutory limits. Furthermore, the adjustment factor is only relevant when the transferred credits are used for compliance; they are not applied at time of transfer. 5. Is the expiry date of transferred credits established by the model year in which such credits are originally earned, regardless of the model year or compliance category to which they are transferred? Answer: Yes, this is correct. Please see the definitions for credits and expiry date in 49 CFR 536.3. 6. When a compliance category has a shortfall in a given model year, is there any restriction on the order in which available banked credits and available transfer credits must be applied? E.g., could a manufacturer meet a shortfall by carrying forward available credits banked in that compliance category, and then transfer additional credits into that compliance category to be banked or saved, subject to the limitations of 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c)? Answer: Your example is correct. Part 536 is intended to give manufacturers maximum flexibility to apply credits in the manner that they deem most appropriate, thus there is no restriction on the order in which available banked credits and available transferred credits can be applied to a shortfall. As long as the credit transfer cap of 32903(g)(3) is not violated, and as long as the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c) is properly applied when the banked credits are used, the situation described should be permissible. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, /s/ O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Part 536 7/6/11 [1] That is, apply credits earned for a fleets over-compliance in one year to a shortfall for that same fleet in a subsequent model year (e.g., credit earned for over-compliance with the MY 2000 light truck standard could be applied to a shortfall with respect to the MY 2002 light truck standard). [2] That is, apply credits earned for a fleets over-compliance in one year to a shortfall for that same fleet in a previous model year (e.g., credit earned for over-compliance with the MY 2000 light truck standard could be applied to a shortfall (or deficit) with respect to the MY 1998 light truck standard). [3] See 49 U.S.C. 32903(f) and (g). [4] We note that credit transfers are also subject to the limitation in 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(4) , which requires manufacturers to meet the minimum standards for domestically-manufactured passenger cars without the use of transferred credits. [5] See 74 Fed. Reg. 49454, 49736-37 (Sept. 28, 2009) and 75 Fed. Reg. 25324, 25665-66 (May 7, 2010) for NHTSAs discussion of this issue in the MYs 2012-2016 CAFE standards rulemaking. |
|
ID: 14669a.drnOpen Ms. Carol Zeitlow, Engineering Quality Manager Dear Ms. Zeitlow: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company must retain the vehicle identification numbers (VINs) that were assigned to Medium Tactical Vehicles (MTVRs), that your company will refurbish for the U. S. Marine Corps (USMC) and the U.S. Army. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not require the VINs to be retained because they were not required for military vehicles. However, Federal criminal legislation enacted in 1992, administered by the Justice Department, proscribes persons from knowingly removing an identification number from a motor vehicle. Your letter describes your company's work on the MTVRs as replacing the engine, axles, transmission, and frame with updated parts. Oshkosh will also be retaining and reworking the cargo body and the cab along with other components. The vehicles you are working on were built for the U.S. Armed Forces for military purposes, and will be used for military purposes after refurbishment. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that because Oshkosh did not originally manufacture the vehicles, you do not know why the vehicles were assigned VINs. A required VIN generally must be retained on a vehicle throughout the life of the vehicle. However, military vehicles are not required by NHTSA to have VINs. NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 571.7(c), Military vehicles, states:
While the VIN requirements are now in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, rather than in a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), we interpret Part 565 not to apply to military vehicles. The requirement that vehicles have VINs was in a FMVSS, Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements, until recently. In 1996, Standard No. 115 was consolidated with Part 565, as part of an effort to simplify the VIN requirements. 61 FR 29031; June 7, 1996. NHTSA indicated in consolidating the requirements that it did not intend to make any substantive changes to the VIN requirements. Thus, this consolidation did not have the effect of requiring that military vehicles have VINs. The consolidation took effect on July 8, 1996. Accordingly, nothing in Part 565 or in any other NHTSA regulation would require Oshkosh to retain the old VIN or (in the event Oshkosh is manufacturing a new vehicle) to assign new VINs. When originally manufactured, since the MTVRs were manufactured for, and sold to, the U.S. Armed Forces in conformity with military specifications, the MTVRs were not required by NHTSA to have VINs. In Oshkosh's "remanufacture" of the MTVRs, since the MTVRs will be built for, and sold to the U.S. Armed Forces "in conformity with contractual specifications," NHTSA would not require the newly manufactured vehicles to have VINs. Nevertheless, since VINs have already been assigned to the MTVRs, the following provision under Federal criminal statutes may apply. Section 511, Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers, was added to Title 18 of the United States Code by the "Anti Car Theft Act of 1992." That section states that whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, for purposes other than repair, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Since the U.S. Department of Justice administers Section 511, you should contact that agency for further information about the provision. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
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.