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: aiam3633OpenMr. Matt Guzzetta, Vice President, Don Vesco Products, Inc., 7565 North Avenue, Lemon Grove, CA 92045; Mr. Matt Guzzetta Vice President Don Vesco Products Inc. 7565 North Avenue Lemon Grove CA 92045; Dear Mr. Guzzetta: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, asking about th legality of 'covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover.'; You reported that manufacturers of motorcycles and fairings ar producing such covers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration views this practice as prohibited and will take appropriate steps to make its views known. The legal authority for this is based upon a requirement of the SAE incorporated by reference in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or, alternatively, paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard.; SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions), *Sealed Beam Headlam Assembly*, is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A paragraph in each version states that, 'When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens.' SAE J580a applies to all sealed beam headlamps, while the scope of J580b is considerably narrower, including only those not covered by SAE J579c.; The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584 *Motorcycle Headlamps*. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles.; Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation o additional equipment 'that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required' by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicitly permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.; For the reasons stated above, the agency has concluded that no headlam may have a glass or plastic shield in front of it when in use, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is used.; As for the turn signals, no part of the vehicle may impair thei visibility through horizontal angles 45 degrees to the right and left of the vehicle (for right and left turn signals respectively) measured at the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. An unobstructed illuminated area of outer lens surface of at least 2 square inches excluding reflex is necessary to meet this requirement. You will have to judge for yourself whether the turn signal requirements are met with your planned cover in place.; If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2521OpenMr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Engineering, 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, CO 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Engineering 5990 N. Washington Street Denver CO 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTS regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, *Certification* and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; As you are aware, Part 567 of our regulations requires a statement b the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (S 567.4(g)(4)). The term 'GAWR' is defined in S 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire- ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.; Standard No. 120 specifies that 'each vehicle . . . shall be equippe with tires that meet specified requirements ' (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.; In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery o vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.; With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty ne trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that (sic) necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and S 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3949OpenRuss L. Bomhoff, Precision Pattern, Inc., 1643 S. Maize Rd., Wichita, KS 67209; Russ L. Bomhoff Precision Pattern Inc. 1643 S. Maize Rd. Wichita KS 67209; Dear Mr. Bomhoff: Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1985, concerning th applicability of our safety standards to a passenger van you are designing. Specifically, you asked whether you can install a stationary, side-facing passenger seat with lap safety belts. As discussed below, you can use such a seat with a lap safety belt, but its use would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 207, *Seating Systems*, 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. A copy of each of those standards is enclosed.; Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, thei attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat beck.; Standard No. 208 sets requirements for the installation of safety belt in motor vehicles. You stated that the vehicle you are designing is a passenger van that carries under 10 passengers. If your vehicle carries a total of 10 persons (9 passengers and a driver) it would be considered either a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), if it is manufactured on a truck chassis or has special features for occasional off-road use, or a passenger car.; If your vehicle is a passenger car, section 4.1.3(c) of the standar provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder safety belt) that conforms with Standard 209 and the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If your vehicle is a MPV, then S4.2.2, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds or less, or S4.3, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 or Type 2 safety felt that conforms to Standard No. 209.; Standard No. 210 sets performance requirements for safety belt anchorages in passenger cars, MPV's, trucks, and buses. The standard exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to the anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3925OpenMr. Jeffrey Richard, JBR Manufacturing, P.O. Box 415, Fairfield, IA 52556; Mr. Jeffrey Richard JBR Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield IA 52556; Dear Mr. Richard: This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safet standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a 6 inch by a 4 inch sheet of 1/8 inch thick semi-transparent rubber that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials,* (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films o other sun screen devices, such as those described in your letter, in *new* vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered, continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.; After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may alter thei vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.; If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair busines installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; I am enclosing the sample of your product you sent with your letter. I you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0866OpenMr. Douglas MacGregor, TERRALAB, 5221 Major Street, Salt Lake City, UT, 84104; Mr. Douglas MacGregor TERRALAB 5221 Major Street Salt Lake City UT 84104; Dear Mr. MacGregor: This is in reply to your letter of August 31, 1972, to Robert C O'Connell, Region VIII Administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'. You raise several questions in your letter which are restated below.; 1. 'Does the standard apply to wood paneling used on the interior o campers, trailers, and mobile homes?'; The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenge vehicles, trucks, and buses. This does not cover trailers, a vehicle class that includes mobile homes among its members, but it does cover campers which are mounted on new chassis. Accordingly, wood paneling used as a component or portion of a component described in Paragraph S4.1 of the standard and installed in campers mounted on new chassis would be subject to the requirements of the standard.; 2. You ask whether the standard applies to the studs used to fasten th wood paneling to the structural framework.; The studs used to fasten the wood paneling to the structural framewor of campers mounted on new chassis are not listed in Paragraph S4.1 of the standard, nor are they incorporated into a component listed in Paragraph S4.1. Consequently, the studs would not be subject to the requirements of the standard.; 3. 'Does the standard apply to plastic door molding?' Paragraph S4.1 does not list door molding as one of the interio components that must meet the requirements of the standard and, therefore, door molding is not covered.; 4. 'Does the standard apply to carpeting, and if so, if the carpetin is tacked to the flooring, does the flooring have to be tested for flammability?'; Paragraph S4.1 lists 'floor coverings' among the components required t meet the requirements of the standard. Since carpeting is a floor covering, it would have to meet the requirements of the standard. The flooring underneath the carpeting would not be considered a 'floor covering' and, accordingly, would not have to meet the requirements of the standard.; 5. 'If the paneling or flooring, either separately or as a subassembly has to be tested, is it tested by this procedure, or a more applicable procedure such as ASTM E251, etc.?'; The flooring, as stated above, is not subject to the requirements o the standard when it is covered by a floor covering such as carpeting. While a manufacturer may test for conformity to the standard as he thinks best, whether his product conforms to the standard will be determined by the NHTSA by means of the test procedures specified in the standard. Manufacturers who use procedures different from those in the standard should correlate the results obtained from such tests with those that would be obtained by the procedures recommended by the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel. |
|
ID: aiam5596OpenMr. Isaias Rios Product Engineering Department Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V. Hidalgo No. 8 Esquina Plano Regulador Xocoyahualco, Tlalnepantla Estado de Mexico C.P. 54080 Mexico; Mr. Isaias Rios Product Engineering Department Rines de Acero K-H S.A. de C.V. Hidalgo No. 8 Esquina Plano Regulador Xocoyahualco Tlalnepantla Estado de Mexico C.P. 54080 Mexico; "Dear Mr. Rios: This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, t Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120. You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs. On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995. We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as 'covered equipment,' such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam5178OpenMr. Carl W. Ruegg President Carlo International, Inc. P.O. Box 250 Selma, CA 93662; Mr. Carl W. Ruegg President Carlo International Inc. P.O. Box 250 Selma CA 93662; Dear Mr. Ruegg: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1993, to Mr Eisner of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). You intend to import 'car parts' into the United States, and would like to know 'the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations'. You assume that 'a part such as fender or other body parts do not.' You have asked this question because some individual parts may arrive as part of assemblies, such as 'chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, principally through the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued under its authority such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each part or component of a motor vehicle is motor vehicle equipment subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction. The Act requires that motor vehicle equipment, whether new or used, meet all applicable FMVSS in order to be imported into the U.S. Some of the FMVSS apply to items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, whether shipped separately or as part of an assembly, equipment such as brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers must comply in order to be admitted into this country. As your question implies, there is a point at which an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment becomes a 'motor vehicle'. An assemblage becomes an 'incomplete motor vehicle' subject to regulation as a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) when it consists, at a minimum, of 'frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle (Sec. 568.3).' As the intention is to import the vehicle without the electric power train, the assemblage you contemplate is not a 'motor vehicle' and remains an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment whose individual components, as noted in the preceding paragraph, are required to comply with the applicable FMVSS. Your letter informs us that ' t hese parts and partial assembly's (sic) would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle.' When the power train is added, the person completing the manufacture of the vehicle is considered to be its manufacturer, required to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS. If you have any further questions, we would be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2444OpenCharles O. Verrill, Jr., Esq., Messrs. Patton, Boggs, & Blow, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Charles O. Verrill Jr. Esq. Messrs. Patton Boggs & Blow 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1976, to th Administrator with respect to the Ryan tote- trailer manufactured by your client, Outboard Marine Corporation. You have asked whether the tote-trailer is a 'motor vehicle' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), if the answer is affirmative you have asked whether the tote trailer is a 'pole trailer' as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b), if the answer is negative, you have asked that any failure to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; In our opinion the tote- trailer is a 'motor vehicle' within th meaning of S 1391(3). Although the equipment that it carries is intended for off-road use, the tote trailer with load is hauled from place to place by motor vehicles, as depicted in the sales literature, that operate on the public roads. It has been our continuing opinion that vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. As your letter indicates, the trailer is purchased by rental agencies and 'is likely to be towed on the public roads and highways.' We therefore have concluded that the tote trailer is 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways' and falls within the coverage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; It is also our conclusion that the tote trailer is not a 'pole trailer as defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b). The tote trailer is attached to the towing vehicle by a conventional tongue and not 'by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle.' In addition, the load does not appear capable of sustaining itself as a beam between the supporting connections.; Therefore, it appears from your letter that all tote trailer manufactured since January 1, 1969, have not been equipped with lighting devices required by 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*, that those manufactured since January 1, 1972, have not been provided with GAWR and GVWR figures on the certification labels required by 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, and that those manufactured since September 1, 1976, may have not been equipped with tires required by 49 CFR 571.120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; If your client wishes to submit a petition for inconsequentiality w request that it follow the format in proposed 49 CFR Part 566, copy enclosed. You may refer any questions on this matter to Mr. Vinson of my staff.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4181OpenMr. Harry H. Kazakian, President, Corleone International Traders, Inc., P.O. Box 3417, Los Angeles, CA 90028; Mr. Harry H. Kazakian President Corleone International Traders Inc. P.O. Box 3417 Los Angeles CA 90028; Dear Mr. Kazakian: This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1986, to which wa attached a 'Magic Eyes Brake Light'. This device consists of two small lamps whose primary functions are to flash automatically 'upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use'. The purpose of the device is to reduce rear end collisions. The artwork on the package shows the lamps mounted at the base of the rear window on either side of the vehicle's vertical centerline. You asked that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking to require the device as original equipment or for the aftermarket.; I regret that we have decided to deny your petition that the device b required as original equipment. The agency's research has shown that the most effective device for reducing rear end collisions is the single center high-mounted stop lamp, and the agency now requires that device to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars. You have presented no facts that demonstrate that an amendment of the nature you have requested is necessary. Although the agency has specified no requirements for aftermarket supplementary stop lamps (other than those that replace original equipment), on the basis of the agency's research, we believe that aftermarket equipment should meet as closely as possible the specifications for original equipment. Therefore, we are also denying your petition for aftermarket equipment.; We would like to advise you that there are no Federal restrictions o the importation and sale of 'Magic Eyes'. However, any State may impose its own restrictions on the use of this lamp on roads within its borders, and you should consult these laws before selling the device.; As a final note, the copy for model JA 201 on the package states 'T comply with latest United States' regulations, this single lamp lights on automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use'. Please delete the reference to United States regulations on your packages. The single lamp required by the United States is steady burning and has but one function, to indicate application of the brake pedal. It cannot be combined with any other light or device. In comparison, your lamp has two functions, and appears to flash in each.; As an accessory item of motor vehicle equipment, your lamp is subjec to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that if a safety related defect occurs in th (sic) lamp, the manufacturer or importer is obligated to inform dealers, distributors and purchasers to repair, repurchase, or replace the item. We are returning your device with this letter.; Sincerely, Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking |
|
ID: aiam3191OpenMr. John B. White, Engineering Manager, Technical Information Department, Michelin Tire Corporation, One Marcus Avenue, Lake Success, New York 11042; Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Department Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success New York 11042; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requeste an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.; Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall b labeled with '*one* size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used.' With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacements sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.; Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred t as 'dual-size markings.' Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements o Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard, *see* 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.; I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean tha NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
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.