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: 08-007039drn eddsOpenMr. Daryl Edds Director of Operations Mechanicsville Christian Center 8161 Shady Grove Road Mechanicsville, VA 23111 Dear Mr. Edds: Thank you for your letter requesting information bearing on your decision whether your church should buy a new van or a mini-bus. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, Mr. David Coker of your church explained that a van was a 15-passenger van and that the mini-bus is a bus that meets this agencys school bus or multifunction school activity bus (MFSAB) standards. We understand that, among other uses, the vehicle would be used to transport children in your congregation, and that there is no school (other than Sunday school) associated with your church. Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable FMVSSs. In the school bus context, the statute requires any person selling a new school bus (a vehicle that is designed to carry 11 or more persons and which is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary students to or from school or related events) to sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applying to school buses. An MFSAB may be sold if the school transportation does not involve school bus route transportation (i.e., that do not involve transporting students between home and school). An MFSAB is a school bus that meets all the school bus FMVSSs except those requiring the installation of traffic control devices (flashing lights and stop arms). From the information you present, it does not appear to us that you are required to be sold a school bus or an MFSAB, since your church will not be transporting children to or from school or related events. We note, however, that NHTSA believes that school buses (including MFSABs) are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. Conversely, we have had numerous safety campaigns to warn people of the risk of rollover in 15-passenger vans. There are some actions that consumers can take to mitigate this risk. Information can be found at www.safercar.gov and clicking on the van safety link. We encourage purchasers to consider purchasing a school bus or MFSAB to transport school-age children. I am enclosing, for your information, copies of an April 6, 2000 letter to Mr. Ted Cashion and an October 1, 2003 letter to U.S. Representative Chris Chocola addressing transportation for children attending church schools. All enclosures referenced in each of these letters are also provided. While NHTSA regulates the first sale of new vehicles, NHTSA does not regulate how the vehicles are to be used. Questions about what vehicles may be used to transport children attending church are addressed by State law, since the State has the authority to determine how the children must be transported to and from school or school-related activities, including the transportation of children by day care centers. Since your church is operating in Virginia, you should contact Virginia state officials to determine if there are any State requirements that pertain to your purchase of the vehicle. You also asked us to address issues of liability relating to the use of 15-passenger vans. The information enclosed discusses a few general concerns associated with the operation of 15-passenger vans. You should ask your insurance agent or private attorney any questions you may have about private tort liability. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff by mail or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA d.2/17/09 |
2009 |
ID: nht76-5.40OpenDATE: 03/03/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA TO: Joseph S. Russo TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1976, requesting an opinion as to whether documents enclosed with your correspondence would satisfy the requirements of the disclosure provisions contained in Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) and 49 CFR Part 580. It appears that both documents contain all of the information necessary to comply with the odometer disclosure requirements. SINCERELY, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH S. RUSSO January 29, 1976 Department of Transportation Enclosed herewith are documents we propose to supply our clients for their use in transferring titles to motor vehicles. Please advise this office as to whether or not these documents are in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act Public Law 92-513 86 Stat. 947 (15 USC 1988 and 49 CFR 580.1). This additional information on the forms is required by LSA-R.S. 32:726.1 of the Statutes of Louisiana. Joseph S. Russo STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF JEFFERSON BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared who, after being duly sworn, deposed that he donates the automobile described below to to whom he has already transferred possession thereof. The approximate value of this vehicle is . Odometer Mileage Statement (Federal Law Requirement) (Federal regulations require you to state the odometer mileage upon transfer of ownership. An inaccurate statement may make you liable for damages to your transferee, pursuant to Section 409(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513.) I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described below is miles. (Check the following statement, if applicable:) [] I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown. MAKE BODY TYPE YEAR MODEL VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER LAST PLATE NUMBER Transferor's address: Transferor's signature: Date of this statement: Odometer Mileage Statement (State Law Requirement) To the best knowledge and belief of transferor, the odometer mileage given above is the true mileage, unless otherwise indicated above. If otherwise indicated above, the true mileage to transferor's best knowledge and belief is . Transferor THUS DONE in my office on the day of 19 , in the presence of the undersigned competent witnesses and me, Notary. EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE. WITNESSES: NOTRAY PUBLIC BILL OF SALE I, , do hereby sell and convey unto the following described automobile for the price of : Odometer Mileage Statement (Federal Law Requirement) (Federal regulations require you to state the odometer mileage upon transfer of ownership. An inaccurate statement may make you liable for damages to your transferee, pursuant to Section 409(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513.) I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described below is miles. (Check the following statement, if applicable:) [] I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown. MAKE BODY TYPE YEAR MODEL VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER LAST PLATE NUMBER Transferor's address: Transferor's signature: Date of this statement: Transferee's signature: Odometer Mileage Statement (State Law Requirement) To the best knowledge and belief of transferor, the odometer mileage given above is the true mileage, unless otherwise indicated above. If otherwise indicated above, the true mileage to transferor's best knowledge and belief is . Transferor Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of . NOTARY PUBLIC |
|
ID: nht73-2.15OpenDATE: 11/09/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Greg Beck TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: Your letter of October 18, 1973, asks what violations of the Federal odometer laws may have occurred in your purchase of a 1962 Tempest which was misrepresented as a 1964 model. Misrepresentation of the model year, which appears to be your principal grievance, is not a violation of Federal law but could be a violation of local laws against fraudulent merchandising. Bill Tillett's failure to give you a disclosure statement may be a violation of the Federal odometer disclosure regulation, a copy of which is enclosed. After March 1, 1973, the regulation requires each seller to make a signed, written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage to his purchaser. If he knows the odometer reading is inaccurate, he must also state that the actual mileage is unknown. This statement must be made before the vehicle is sold. If your seller violated these regulations with fraudulent intent, a civil remedy is available to you under @ 409 of the Act for $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain your remedy, @ 409 provides that you may bring a private civil action in State or Federal court. You may wish to consult an attorney about the possibility of bringing an action in your case. Sincerely, Enclosure October 18, 1973 Local Consumer Protection Commission and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Used Car Dear Sirs: My wife and I purchased for her a used car in the beginning of August however the recent newspaper articles on used car dealings leads me to believe that I was swindled. The car dealer, Bill Tillett of Lancaster Pennsylvania, promised delivery of a 1962 Corvair on August 2, 1973 so on the previous day I gave him a check for $ 156.50 (check #791) which included title, license, state tax, etc on the car which cost $ 125.00. In return I received only a receipt of the money stating said car would be ready the following day. This car was not ready for a week, and even then it was not able to pass inspection (one of my conditions) so being in immediate need of a car he said that he would give us a 1964 Pontiac Tempest 4 cylinder. This car was suited for our needs so we agreed. Then he said that since the Tempest was 2 years newer that it would cost us $ 40.00 more. This we paid reluctantly August 8 (check # 800). I had to return the Corvair's receipt and a new receipt with just Tempest written on it with the total cost of $ 196.50 at the bottom. The bill was not itemized. I received a small slip of paper containing the year (1964) and model # and number of cylidners to send to my insurance company. Mr. Tillett took care of the title and sent us to pick up the license. When I received the title two weeks ago I noticed that only the serial number and model - Tempest appeared on the title. This was ignored until yesterday when I saw a 1964 Tempest - it was not like my car in style. Further checking revealed that I purchased a 1962 Tempest. 1. I received no mileage disclosure statement as I now see was required by law. 2. I was told, as was my insurance company, that I purchased a 1964 Tempest and thus paid another $ 40 for this car over the 1962 Corvair's price. Recently Bill Tillett ran an ad for a 1963 Tempest for $ 95 while I paid $ 165 for a 1964 which was really a 1962. I wish to press any charges which will enable me to get my money back. Sincerely, Greg and Sandra Beck 1715 Swarr Run Rd. Lancaster, Penna. 17601 or c/o Lancaster Theological Seminary 555 West James Street Lancaster, Pa. 17604 cc: both addresses |
|
ID: nht78-3.33OpenDATE: 04/05/78 FROM: FRANK BERNDT FOR JOSEPH J. LEVIN; NHTSA TO: General Engines Co. Inc. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your January 13, 1978, letter asking whether prior to September of 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) required the GAWR determination to be based upon an "unrestricted" speed of 60 miles per hour. The NHTSA requires that a vehicle's GAWR be based upon an unqualified speed of 60 miles per hour. This GAWR computation is then inserted on a vehicle's certification plate by the manufacturer to inform users of the safe GAWR. However, it is permissible to then list at the bottom of a certification plate different GAWR's based upon reduced speeds. If you intended one of your vehicles to operate under a reduced speed with a higher GAWR, you should have marked the correct GAWR on the certification label computed at 60 miles per hour and listed the higher GAWR's for the reduced speeds at the bottom of the plate. The 1976 amendment to which you refer, Standard No. 120, continues to require the same approach to GAWR as has been the agency's practice for many years. The only difference incorporated by the 1976 amendment is that those vehicles that are unable to attain speeds of 50 miles per hour in 2 miles need not base their GAWR determination on the 60 mile per hour figure. These vehicles may compute their GAWR's at a reduced speed. Nonetheless, they are still permitted to list at the bottom of the certification plate higher GAWR's for further reduced speeds. SINCERELY, JANUARY 13, 1977 Joseph Levine U.S. Department of Transportation NHSTA Reference: NMV-22 GSh CIR 1711-1 Dear Mr. Levine: Our company has been charged by NHSTA (Office of Standards Enforcement) of building trailers during the period 1972 to September 1976 "which had tires with weight ratings less than the GAWR." This statement is true if the GAWR is calculated at the unqualified speed of 60 M.P.H. Our GAWR's were based on reduced speeds, which to the best of our knowledge was permissible at that time. We request a legal interpretation of the following: During the period of 1972 to August 1976 was there a specific requirement in FMVSS 49 CFR Part 567 or 571 which stated that semi-trailers were required to use an unqualified speed rating of 60 M.P.H. to determine GAWR? To the best of our knowledge the "unrestricted" or "unqualified" speed rating requirement for GAWR certification became a requirement in September of 1976, under 571.120. Your early attention to this question would be appreciated. We have discussed this problem with Mr. Shifflet, Mr. Buckley, and Mr. Ness. F. W. Flowers, Jr. Vice-President |
|
ID: 07-004353--21 Aug 07--rlsOpenMr. Terry Wagar State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles Office of Vehicle Safety and Clean Air 6 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12228 Dear Mr. Wagar: This responds to your request for our interpretation of whether A. 4687, a legislative bill proposing to amend Section 375-35 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, would be preempted by federal law. A. 4687 would amend Section 375-35 to prohibit tires from being manufactured, distributed, offered for sale or sold in New York for use on passenger vehicles, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, or light trucks unless a date of manufacture is clearly molded on both sides of the tire in a non-coded fashion.[1] Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, we believe that the changes proposed to the Vehicle and Traffic Law by A. 4687, would be preempted by federal law. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), expressly preempts State standards that differ from Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect under the Act. Section 30103(b) states in relevant part: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 139, (FMVSS) New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139), requires each tire to be labeled in the manner specified in Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139 states that for tires manufactured before September 1, 2009, Each tire must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR part 574 on a sidewall of the tire, and that on the other sidewall, the tire must be labeled with either the tire identification number or a partial tire identification number containing all characters . . . except the date code and, at the discretion of the manufacturer, any optional code. S5.5.1(a). For tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, the requirements are similar, except that the full tire identification number is required on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire, unless there is no intended outboard sidewall. S5.5.1(b). Part 574 contains requirements for identifying tire manufacture dates. Under 574.5, Tire identification requirements, tire manufacturers must permanently mold or laser etch into or onto the sidewall of each tire an identification number containing certain information. Among that information is a section with four numerical symbols representing the week and year of manufacture. Section 574.5(d) states in relevant part that: The first two symbols must identify the week of the year by using 01 for the first full calendar week in each year, 02 for the second full calendar week, and so on. The third and fourth symbols must identify the year. Example: 0101 means the 1st week of 2001, or the week beginning Sunday, January 7, 2001 and ending Saturday, January 13, 2001. The language of A. 4687 requiring the date to be molded in a non-coded fashion and on both sides of the tire apparently specifies a labeling scheme that is not identical to that required by FMVSS No. 139. Since the State requirement would not be identical to the Federal requirement, we would consider A. 4687s proposed amendment to Section 375-35 of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law to be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel NCC-112:RSchade:mar:8/21/07:62992:OCC 07-004353 Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron S:\INTERP\574\07-004353--21 Aug 07--rls.doc |
|
ID: nht80-3.33OpenDATE: 08/06/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Airstream TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your June 13, 1980, letter asking whether your company would be considered a chassis-cab manufacturer subject to the labeling requirements of Part 567, Certification. You indicate that you take another manufacturer's incomplete chassis with a motor and add to it a cab and body with bumpers, mirrors, and exterior trim. This vehicle is then sent to a final-stage manufacturer for final completion. We would not consider you to be a chassis-cab manufacturer subject to the certification requirements. As you know, a chassis-cab is defined in Part 567 as "an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant compartment, that requires only the addition of cargo carrying, work performing, or load bearing components to perform its intended functions." The incomplete vehicle upon which your manufacturing operation begins is simply a chassis without the cab. As such, that vehicle is subject to the incomplete vehicle document requirements of Part 568, but it is not subject to the chassis-cab certification requirements. Your modification adds on a bus body which then needs final work before it can be used. Since you do not complete the occupant compartment as required by the definition of "chassis-cab", you are not required to attach a certification label. You are simply an intermediate manufacturer. The final-stage manufacturer would attach the only label to the vehicle. |
|
ID: 10-005845 Sorrell drn.docOpen
Elizabeth D. Sorrell, Esq. Law Offices of Tom McGrath 813 Diligence Drive, Suite 121-E Newport News, VA Dear Ms. Sorrell: This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the DOT symbol on the label specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle h Mr. William Gannon, II remains the same. The answer is yes, with regard to the first question. We would like to add clarification with regard to the second question. The two questions posed in Mr. Gannons letter are: 1) In the letter to Mr. Gannon, we stated: Federal law does not prohibit the helmets owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing or covering the label from a motorcycle helmet. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove or cover the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law or Standard No. 218. That response to Mr. Gannons letter continues to be valid with regard to Federal law. However, I would add that the letter to Mr. Gannon did not address State law requirements that may prohibit an owner from removing or obscuring the DOT label. You should contact your I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel 5/31/2011 |
|
ID: 1983-1.33OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/24/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Cummins Engine Company, Inc. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT:
MAR 24 1983 NOA-30
Mr. J. N. Uranga Cummins Engine Company, Inc. Box 3005 Columbus, Indiana 47201
Dear Mr. Uranga:
This responds to your January 28, 1983, letter asking about the responsibilities of an original equipment manufacturer for compliance with Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, and other agency recall-related regulations. In particular, you ask questions concerning a hypothetically defective original equipment fan that is a component of an original equipment engine that you manufacture. You ask whether your company would be responsible for compliance with agency regulations if you notified the fan manufacturer of a defect in its product and if that manufacturer refused to report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Part 579, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility, states clearly that original equipment is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer. As such, the manufacturer(s) of the vehicles in which the equipment is installed would be responsible for recalling and remedying the defective fan. However, Part 573 states that in the case of original equipment, defect reports shall be submitted by either the equipment or the vehicle manufacturer when the defective equipment has been supplied to only one vehicle manufacturer. On the other hand, where such equipment is supplied to more than one manufacturer, both the vehicle manufacturers and the original equipment manufacturer must submit the required reports. Your hypothetical situation further complicates the reports question because the original equipment is a component of the original equipment that you manufacture. The agency concludes that in the situation that you posit, the manufacturer of the fan and the manufacturer of all of the vehicles in which the fan is installed would be required to supply the necessary defect reports. Failure to do so would subject all manufacturers to the penalties provided by law. If the fan manufacturer refuses to submit the required reports, it would be the responsibility of your company to issue the report to the agency, since you would also be considered an original equipment manufacturer and the defective component would be part of your equipment. The agency would not require both your company and the fan manufacturer to report. A report submitted by either company would be considered compliance by both companies. However, failure of both companies to report could result in the imposition of penalties on both.
I trust this fully answers your question.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
January 25, 1983
Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Berndt:
Aenid Rubenstein and David Allen of your staff recommended I request a written opinion from your office regarding the applicability of your operational regulations (49 CFR 573 et. seq.) to the following hypothetical situation:
Cummins Engine Company, Inc. manufactures only diesel engines. It sells such engines to OEM's for installation in their trucks. The OEM's attach various components to our engines as part of their installation. One of such OEM add-ons is the engine cooling fan. Assume an OEM manufactured fan, attached to our engine fails. Assume further that Cummins notifies the OEM that such fan has failed (along with particulars of where, when, frequency, etc.) and requests to know if the OEM will notify NHTSA. Assume the OEM does or does not conduct a safety defect investigation of the failure but indicates to Cummins that it will not report to NHTSA for whatever reason. Under this hypothetical situation, what is Cummins' responsibility vis-a-vis NHTSA?
Our concern in this hypothetical situation is for the truck user who may be injured and who will probably assume that the fan was an integral part of the engine.
The Corporate Product Safety Committee of Cummins is involved in reviewing and formulating corporate guidelines regarding product safety and would appreciate your timely response to the above question.
Yours truly,
Senior Counsel J.N.Uranga/cst |
|
ID: nht89-3.15OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1989 FROM: DAVID SCHMELTZER -- ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR COMPLIANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 5-25-90 TO SUSAN BIRENBAUM FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD (A35; VSA 102(4)); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM AND LETTER DATED 6-29-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM. TEXT: By letter dated June 29, 1989, this office inquired if a product which is intended for inflating and temporarily repairing flat tires is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act at 15 U.S. C. S1391(4). A copy of that letter is enclosed. The Commission has received reports of six serious injuries associated with the ignition of the propellant gas from this product in tires which were being repaired. These injuries have included brain damage, loss of vision, loss of hearing, and broken b ones. As you know, the Commission does not have authority to regulate products which are items of "motor vehicle equipment" under provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. S2051 et seq.). Because of the serious nature of some of the inju ries associated with this product, this office would appreciate y our guidance as soon as possible on the question of whether this product is an item of "motor vehicle equipment." If the product is not motor vehicle equipment, the Commission would have a uthority under the CPSA to issue a consumer product safety standard or a banning rule to eliminate or reduce any unreasonable risk of injury which may be associated with the product. Additionally, the CPSA authorizes the Commission to order the manufact urer of any product con- taining a defect which presents a "substantial product hazard" to give public notice of that defect and to elect to repair, replace, or repurchase the product. If you have any questions or comments, you may contact Bill Moore in our office of Administrative Litigation. His telephone number is 492-6626. |
|
ID: nht81-1.43OpenDATE: 03/16/81 FROM: Frank Berndt -- NHTSA TO: Burley R. Carpenter TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1981, with reference to your contemplated importation of a BMW passenger car, chassis/serial number 1536114. Our records confirm your statement that this vehicle was manufactured in the autumn of 1967. Since it was manufactured before January 1, 1968, it may be imported without modifications necessary to meet Federal safety or emission requirements. When your car reaches the port of entry, you will be asked to execute a Declaration Form (HS-7) for safety matters; Box 1 is the appropriate item to check. The car, of course, will have to meet the requirements of the State in which it is to be licensed. SINCERELY, FEB. 18, 1981 DIRECTOR OFFICE OF STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAM U.S. DOT Dear Sirs, I am stationed with the US Army in Germany. I own a 1967 BMW, 1600, that I would like to ship back to the U.S. The Chassis/Engine number is 1536114. The local BMW Dealer said that this model was made from 1966 thru 1968. The car was first sold on 20 Nov 1967 this is the only date in the German Tible Book. Can this car be imported into the US without modifications? If not what modifications must be made? Any information you can give me will be greatly appreciated. Burley R. Carpenter |
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.