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: nht91-2.3OpenDATE: February 26, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Gene Schlanger -- President, ROC Capital, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from Gene Schlanger to Taylor Vinson TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX of January 3, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking about the permissibility under Federal and State regulations of a lighted sign" on which messages could be scrolled from left to right. Such a sign "is designed to be mounted inside the car, either on a rear or side window." However, "if that is deemed legally inappropriate, the sign can be designed to be placed outside on the roof of the auto." The sign would incorporate LEDs and would not project a beam or flash. You intend to sell it "to the general public." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no specific Federal motor vehicle safety standard that addresses your device, nor any prohibition against your selling it. The question arises, however, as to whether and under what circumstances Federal law may allow its use. As a general rule, aftermarket equipment such as this is acceptable under Federal law provided that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, does not entail removal of, or otherwise rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that removal by any of the persons just mentioned of the high-mounted stop lamp that has been required on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, in order to substitute your lighted sign, would be a violation of Federal law. The question arises of whether the lighted sign may be installed in the rear window of any other vehicle, or in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, or on the top of any vehicle, situations where there is no direct removal of safety equipment. The agency regards any impairment of the effectiveness of rear lighting equipment as tantamount to rendering it partially inoperative. Thus, if aftermarket equipment is likely to create confusion or distraction in a following motorist, we regard it as likely to impair the messages that required lighting equipment is supposed to impart. A lighted sign with a changing message is likely to create a distraction, diverting attention from signals sent by stop lamps or turn signal lamps. Thus, we believe that this device has the potential of rendering those lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. Even when installed in a side window, where it may not be visible directly to the rear, the device has the potential of distraction when the vehicle carrying it is approached in other lanes, i.e., at an angle from the rear. We are unable to tell you whether the device is illegal under the laws of each of the 50 States. If you are interested in pursuing this question, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. |
|
ID: nht72-6.20OpenDATE: 07/05/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: University of Puerto Rico TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1972, raising certain questions concerning the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You ask whether the amendments made by sections 4(a) and (c) of Public Law 91-265 took effect on November 28, 1970 or later. Section 4(d) of that law specified, as you note, that these sections take effect 180 days after the enactment of the Act, unless the Secretary of Transportation determined that a later date was in the public interest. No such determination was made, and the sections took effect 180 days after the Act's enactment. However, our computation shows that 180 days after May 22 is November 18, not November 28. You ask if Owners Lists (49 CFR 573.6), including vehicle identification numbers, can be obtained by NHTSA and transmitted to your organization. The NHTSA would not consider it appropriate to require manufacturers to submit owner's lists to it for purposes not involved in the enforcement of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We would not consider the study you wish to perform to be within this purpose. You also ask if we can furnish you copies of Quarterly Reports (49 CFR 573.5) at least as they relate to cars sold in Puerto Rico. Quarterly reports submitted by manufacturers, except for the production figures submitted pursuant to section 573.5(b), are considered to be public documents and are available for public inspection. Due to the large number of reports we receive, however, we can furnish copies only if the precise reports desired are specified. The reports do not disclose the geographical location of the vehicles involved. With reference to your request for the latest version of the leaflet, "Motor Vehicle Safety Defect Recall Campaigns," I have enclosed the volume which provides information for the complete year 1971, and a new volume dealing with January-March 1972. |
|
ID: nht74-4.8OpenDATE: 07/03/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your May 16, 1974, request for approval of Continental's banding technique to meet the requirements of Standard No. 106 Brake hoses, for labeling brake hose assemblies, and for use of the letter "C" to identify Continental as an assembly manufacturer. The NHTSA interpretes a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. From this discussion, you should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of specific design. The letter "C" has already been recorded with the Office of Standards Enforcement as the manufacturer designation for Continental Gummi-Werke A. G. of Germany. Please submit another choice to: Office of Standards Enforcement, "Brake Hose Identification", National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attention: Mr. Herlehy Subject: MVSS-106 Docket 10 Dear Sir: Continental Hydraulic Hose manufacture hydraulic brake hose assemblies. We also make the end fittings but purchase the hose. The fittings are permanently crimped in place. Reference is made to paragraph S5.2.4 of Docket 10 which relates to labeling by the hose assembler. We propose: 1) That our designation be the letter "C". 2) That the band be a strip of adhesive backed vinyl tape wrapped securely around the skirt of one end fitting. The tape would be preprinted in 1/8" letters with: DOT C (our code) Month and year. Please advise if the above is acceptable. Sincerely, James W. Long |
|
ID: nht90-3.97OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: September 13, 1990 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Robert Erhardt -- Senior Project Engineer, Advance Transformer Co. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-90 from R. Erhardt to P.J. Rice (OCC 5113) TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1990, received on the 21st. Although the ZIP code was correct, the address was not. For your future use, the agency's address is 400 7th Street SW. You wish to road test engineering samples of a new type of headlamp system by equipping one to 10 private and/or company vehicles with them. The test would continue indefinitely for lifetime and reliability evaluation. You would like to be advised of th e laws concerning such an undertaking. We assume that the experimental headlamp system is presently outside the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the Federal vehicle standard on lighting, and that the existing headlamp system that meets Standard No. 108 would be removed so th at the new one could be installed. Modifications to vehicles in use are directly addressed by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Under this section, "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" pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defi ned by that section as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation. The prohibition, you will note, does not extend to the vehicle owner. With respect to your planned test procedure, removal of the vehicle's original headlamp system would render it inoperative within the meaning of the statutory language. However, if the vehicles concerned were owned by the company, and if the headlamp re moval were performed in a company garage by company personnel, the prohibition would not apply. In addition, if the vehicles were privately owned and either the owner or the company garage removed the headlamps, the prohibition also would not apply (ass uming that the company garage does not repair non-company vehicles for compensation). The question of the legality of use of the experimental system after its installation is determinable under the laws of the States where the vehicles are registered and will be operated. Thus, we suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in Springfield for an interpretation under local law. If the modified vehicles will be operated in States other than Illinois, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Given your wish to begin the program as early as August 27, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) should you have any further questions. |
|
ID: nht87-1.99OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/27/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Takashi Shimoda -- Chief of Quality Assurance Section, Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. Takashi Shimoda Chief of Quality Assurance Section Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd. 1118, Sazuchi, Besso-cho Himeji-City, 671-02 JAPAN This responds to your letter to our office asking two questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. I am pleased to be of assistance. In your letter, you explain that your company plans to export brake hose assemblies to the United States that are made of resin and other materials. You first ask whether Standard No. 106 applies "equally" to all brake hoses and assemblies regardless of the materials used in their manufacture. Your understanding is correct. Brake hoses and brake hose assemblies may be made from any material as long as they can meet all applicable performance requirements of the standard. Your second question concerns the standard's whip resistance requirement of S5.3.3 and the whip resistance test of S6.3, You ask for confirmation that cracks in hose specimen are acceptable under S5.3.3 provided that there is no leakage from the hose assembly. Your understanding is correct. S5.3.3 states: "A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture when run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours (S6.3)." The standard defines "rupture" as "any failure that results in separation of a brake hose from its end fitting or in leakage." The determining factor for the whip resistance requirement is thus the pressure maintained by the system. If there is no pressure loss in the system, the brake hose assembly meets S5.3.3, regardless of the presence of cracks in the hose specimen. Please note, however, that although cracks in themselves do not constitute a failure of S5.3.3, the development of cracks caused by exposure to ozone is important for the ozone resistance requirement of S5.3.10.
Since you are planning to import your products into the United States, I am enclosing copies to two procedural rules which apply to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires your company to submit its name, address and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days after it imports its products into this country. The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information: 1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and, 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures (procedural rules 49 CFR Part 566 and Part 551) omitted
Dear Sir: Re: Inquiry on FMVSS No. 106 - Brake Hose We are a manufacturer of brake hoses, and are registered at NHTSA with a maker identification code "NCRN". Now, we are planning to export to the U.S. brake hose assemblies made of resin which are individually built into motor cycles. We are aware that the brake hose assemblies are subject to control under FMVSS No. 106. In this connection, we ask you a few questions on interpretations of FMVSS No. 106. Question 1. FMVSS No. 106 provides for no regulations on the materials used. We interpret it to equally apply, whether the material is rubber or resin. Is this understanding justifiable? For the inner tubes and outer covers of the brake hoses we are now manufacturing, we are using rubber. But under a future plan, we schedule to use nylon for the inner tubes, and thermoplastic polyester resin for the outer covers. Question 2. On whip resistance: The standard sets forth the requirement s follows; A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture, when run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours. In this test, the time elapsed before a hose assembly, while being tested, has ruptured, causing water inside to leak out, is recorded, to make the judgment on its whip resistance. If even when cracks have developed which have not lead to leakage from the hose which is under testing, the hose shows no evidence of leakage, while the tester is running, then, we judge this hose acceptable. Is this judgment right? Thanking you for your early answer.
Very sincerely yours, Takashi Shimoda Chief of Quality Assurance Section NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. |
|
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: GF007935OpenTerence McBride, Manager Dear Mr. McBride: This responds to your e-mail of November 4, 2003, to George Feygin of my staff. In your e-mail, you inform us that the State of Tennessee has passed a bill (No. HB1819/SB1765) permitting oscillating stop lamps on motorcycles. You ask whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) permit oscillating stop lamps on motorcycles. As discussed below, the answer is no. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements prior to the initial sale of the vehicle. The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment in motorcycles is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. The relevant section of that standard reads as follows:
In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise permitted. In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, motorcycle stop lamps must be steady burning and cannot be oscillating. With respect to Federal preemption of State laws, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) provides in pertinent part:
This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State cannot authorize oscillating motorcycle stop lamps since the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prohibits such lighting devices. We further note that installation of a non-steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after the initial sale is subject to the restrictions of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits "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. Depending on the circumstances, installation of a non-steady burning lamp after the initial sale of the motorcycle could be viewed as a violation of this "make inoperative" provision. I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2004 |
ID: nht75-2.7OpenDATE: 11/03/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Walt Robbins, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 5, 1975, enclosing a copy of your patent for a tire described as a "Radial, Bias Ply Tire" and requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars. The tire would be constructed with three full body plies: two bias plies (angle 35 degrees) and one radial ply (angle 90 degrees). S4.3(g) of the standard requires permanent molding of the word "radial" into or onto both sidewalls if the tire is a radial ply tire and, by implication, prohibits the use of the word "radial" if the tire is not a radial ply tire. In S3., "radial ply tire" is defined as: a pneumatic tire in which the ply cords which extend to the beads are laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread. The tire you have described is not within the scope of this definition because it includes ply cords extending to the beads which are not laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread. Therefore, the word "radial" must not appear on either sidewall. SINCERELY, Walt Robbins Incorporated June 5, 1975 Mark Schwimmer National Highway Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel Enclosed is a copy of our patent #3,672,423. I would appreciate it if you would review this and notify me as to what the labeling requirements would be for the tire construction as shown in this patent, with reference to paragraph S4.3, subparagraph h, of MVSS100. As I interpret your labeling requirements, the radial designation would be adequate as this is a full radial ply. In addition to the radial ply, we have two bias plies, so my question to you is should this be designated radial or radial/bias. I would appreciate an answer as soon as possible inasmuch as we have completed DOT testing and are ready for production. Your cooperation in this matter will be most appreciated. VENTURE TIRE CORP. Walter C. Robbins, Jr. President United States Patent Duduk [15] 3,672,423 [45] June 27, 1972 [54] RADIAL, BIAS PLY TIRE [72] Inventor: Alexander Duduk, 2300 S 24th Road Apt. #731, Arlington, Va 22206 [22] Filed: April 7, 1970 [21] Appl. No.: 26,411 Patent Omitted. |
|
ID: nht76-5.36OpenDATE: 05/11/76 FROM: VETTER FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA TO: Ford Motor Company TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: I am writing to inform you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will, for a limited time, refrain from enforcing one portion of 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations. Subpart B of Part 575 specifies certain items of consumer information that apply to motor vehicles and their tires. Section 575.6 in Subpart A requires this information to be delivered to first purchasers (paragraphs (a) and (b)), made available to prospective purchasers (paragraph (c)) and submitted to the NHTSA (paragraph (d)). In particular, @ 575.6(d) requires that: Each manufacturer of motor vehicles . . . shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Part B of this part that is applicable to the vehicles or tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before that information is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. I understand that the strike by the United Rubber Workers has, by cutting off the supply of new tires, created an emergency situation within the motor vehicle industry, making it difficult for a manufacturer to know more than several days before it completes a vehicle which tires will be available for installation on the vehicle. I understand further that the provision of such information to the NHTSA 30 days before it is made available to prospective purchasers has become virtually impossible. In view of the impracticability under the current circumstances of the 30-day-notice requirement, the NHTSA has concluded that enforcement of the requirement at this time is inappropriate. Accordingly, with respect to vehicles offered for sale during the strike and the 60-day period following its settlement, the NHTSA will refrain from enforcing the 30-day-notice requirement in @ 575.6(d). Submittals of information to the agency must continue to be made, however, not later than the time the information is made available to prospective purchasers. With respect to vehicles that will be offered for sale at the expiration of the 60-day period, the NHTSA expects to begin receiving submittals after the thirtieth day following settlement of the strike. Please note that the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of @ 575.6, as well as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims -- Passenger Cars, are not affected by this letter. |
|
ID: 1985-01.51OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/20/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey E.Miller; NHTSA TO: Mr. A. R. Fisher TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. A. R. Fisher Manager, Environmental Affairs New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. 45500 Fremont Boulevard Fremont, California 94538
Dear Mr. Fisher:
This is in response to your letter of October 5, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding.
Under the assumptions that your Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status and that light-duty engines are "certified at time of entry," you have asked for confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not require a DOT HS-7 Form for the engines.
Motor vehicle engines are not subject to any form of certification to DOT requirements, and no HS-7 Form is required for them under any circumstances.
You have also asked for confirmation that no HS-7 need be filed for finished vehicles entering the stream of commerce of the United States provided that they are produced at the Fremont plant and are in compliance at the time of delivery.
For Customs purposes, motor vehicles manufactured in Foreign Trade Zones within the United States are not considered as subject to importation requirements until they leave the Zone and enter the Customs Territory of the United States. Under the joint DOT-Treasury (Customs) regulation governing importation of vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a declaration must be given (usually the Form HS-7) when vehicles enter the United States, even if they bear the certification of compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(ii)). Technically, Customs could require declarations for all vehicles manufactured in the Zone at Fremont.
However, declarations may be waived for certified U.S., Mexican, or Canadian-registered vehicles arriving at land borders (19 C.F.R. 12.80(f)), at the discretion of the District Director of the border crossing involved. We view the Fremont Trade Zone situation as analogous, and you may inform the local District Customs Director that this agency would have no objection if the declaration requirement were waived for the cars to be produced at Fremont. Should the District Director decide that authority was lacking for such a waiver, your recourse would appear to be to petition the U.S. Customs Service for rulemaking to amend Section 12.80(f) to include certified but unregistered vehicles produced within Foreign Trade Zones.
In closing, we request that your company file a Manufacturer Identification statement with this agency as required by 49 C.F.R Part 566.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel
October 5, 1984
Mr. Taylor Vinson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Vinson:
This letter is a follow up to a conversation last week with Mr. Clive Van Orden concerning the enclosed letter of August 17, 1984. I would like to reconfirm that NHTSA does not need to receive nor require DOT HS Form 7 for light-duty engines imported by New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) for the purpose of new vehicle production, providing that such engines are certified at the time of entry and the Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status. If the above understanding is correct we would appreciate receiving a confirmation letter.
Also, please advise us if the filing of DOT HS Form 7 will not be necessary for finished vehicles entered into the commerce of the United States provided such vehicles 1) are produced at the Fremont plant and 2) are in compliance at the time of delivery. Sincerely, A.R. Fisher, PhD Manager, Environmental Affairs
cc: E. Muirhead - NUMMI T. Welte - U.S. Customs
August 17, 1984
Mr. Clive Van Orden National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590
Dear Mr. Van Orden:
As a follow up to our conversation last week, I would like to reconfirm that NHTSA does not need to receive nor require DOT HS form 7 for engines imported by New United Motor Mfg. Inc. (NUMMI) for the purpose of new vehicle production, providing that such engines are certified at the time of entry and the Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status. If the above understanding is correct we would appreciate receiving a confirmation letter. Also, please advise us if the filing of DOT HS form 7 will not be necessary for finished vehicles entered into the commerce of the United States provided such vehicles 1) are produced at the Fremont plant and 2) are in compliance at the time of delivery. Sincerely,
Anthony Fisher. Ph.D Manager - Environmental Affairs
cc: e. Muirhead - NUMMI T. Welte - U.S. Customs
|
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.