NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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

Displaying 2541 - 2550 of 16517

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam5448 Open Ms. H. Kristie Jones, President P.J.'s Fabrication, Inc. P.O. Box 880 Stanfield, OR 97875; Ms. H. Kristie Jones President P.J.'s Fabrication Inc. P.O. Box 880 Stanfield OR 97875; "Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). You explained that P.J.'s Fabrication (P.J.), which manufactures trailers, entered into a contract with Coulson Commander Trailers (Coulson) to manufacture trailers that will be marketed under Coulson's name. Skip Jones of your company has told Dorothy Nakama of my staff that he does not believe Coulson has any manufacturing capability or that Coulson manufactures trailers. You ask whether under Standard No. 115, P.J. assigns the VIN to the vehicles. The answer is yes. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that 'Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer.' The term 'manufacturer' is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person 'manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.' According to the information provided in your letter, P.J. fits this definition of a manufacturer. Moreover, you also state that 'P.J.'s accepts responsibility for warranty work and quality control to meet DOT specifications.' This statement indicates that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), as a manfacturer must under our certification requirements. Accordingly, all the information presented to us indicates that P.J. is the trailer manufacturer, and it is therefore appropriate for P.J. to assign the VIN to the trailers. As noted above, you indicate that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Since FMVSS No. 115 applies to the trailers and requires each new trailer to have a VIN, P.J. must assign a VIN to the vehicle in order to correctly certify that the vehicle meets the FMVSS's (namely, FMVSS No. 115). In other words, since the FMVSS's require a VIN, the trailers must have a VIN by the time P.J. certifies the vehicles as complying with the FMVSS's. You also asked which company issues the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO), that your letter referred to as the 'Certificate of Origin.' Since MSOs are regulated by state law, for information about each state's requirements, you must contact the state's department of motor vehicles. A source of information about each state's requirements is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22203. The telephone number for the AAMVA is (703) 522-4200. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2677 Open Mr. James Tydings, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 1408 Courtesy Road, P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. James Tydings Thomas Built Buses Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your September 15, 1977, letter asking severa questions pertaining to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.; You first ask whether side-facing seats installed in school buses fo purposes of transporting handicapped or convalescent passengers are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 222. The answer to your question is yes. these seats are not considered school bus seats' as that term is defined in S4 of the standard. The remaining forward-facing seats installed in the same bus, however, would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard.; In a related matter, you ask what your responsibility would be should non-handicapped passenger use a handicapped passenger seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) realized when it adopted the limited seating exception applicable to seats for the handicapped that these seats might on occasion be used by non-handicapped passengers. The agency is continuing to study such problems in order to ensure that buses designed to accommodate handicapped passengers provide a sufficient level of safety for all individuals they routinely transport. Standard No. 222 does not place a responsibility upon school bus users to permit only handicapped students to sit in side-facing seats. Of course, any passenger seated in such a seat will not benefit from the protection provided by forward-facing seats that meet the requirements of the Federal standard.; In a final question, you ask whether the position of a wheelchair i close proximity to the rear emergency exit of a bus would violate S5.4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 217. The NHTSA will measure the opening using the described parallelepiped device as the vehicle is constructed in its unloaded condition. Since the wheelchair would not be present when the vehicle was in its unloaded condition, your location of the wheelchair would not violate the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3965 Open Mr. Tom Cooney, Executive Editor, Tire Review, 11 South Forge Street, Akron, Ohio 44304; Mr. Tom Cooney Executive Editor Tire Review 11 South Forge Street Akron Ohio 44304; Dear Mr. Cooney: This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, askin several questions about the removal of the DOT numbers from the sidewall of tires. In a February 5, 1985 telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, you stated that the answers to all of your questions except number 7 should address the situation only for tire dealers and distributors. With that limitation, I have set forth below the answers to each of your questions in the order presented in your letter.; 1. Under what circumstances, if any, may a DOT number be removed fro a passenger car tire?; There are no circumstances in which a tire dealer or distributor ca legally remove a DOT number from a passenger car tire. It is unclear when you refer to a 'DOT number' whether you are referring to just the tire identification number required to be on every new and retreaded tire by 49 CFR Part 574, or that identification number together with the DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is required to appear on all new tires for highway use and retreaded passenger car tires as a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire fully complies with the applicable Federal safety standard.; In any case, Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires - passenger cars (49 CFR S571.109) applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 requires that the symbol DOT be on the tire, and section S4.3.1 requires that the tire identification number be on the tire. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) specifies '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 an...item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' By removing the DOT identification number, a dealer or distributor would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tire which is included on the tire in compliance with Standard No. 109. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108. This agency would consider each tire from which the DOT number had been removed to be a separate violation.; 2. If the answer to question 1 is none, is there any situation in which a passenger car tire can b sold for farm or off- road use provided that the DOT number has been removed?; There is no situation in which a passenger car tire with the DOT numbe removed can be sold for any purpose. Section S6 of Standard No. 109 reads as follows:; S6 Nonconforming tires. No tire that is designed for use on passenge cars and manufactured on or after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to all the requirements of this standard, shall be sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, for any purpose.; A passenger car tire without the DOT number does not conform to al requirements of the standard, so its sale for any purpose is expressly prohibited. A violation of this section would subject the seller to a potential penalty of up to $1000 for each nonconforming tire sold.; 3. Under what circumstances can tires for use on motor vehicles othe than passenger cars have the DOT number removed and the tires sold for off-road or farm use only?; This is really a two part question. Again, there are no circumstance in which a tire dealer or distributor can legally remove the DOT number from these tires. Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119) applies to these tires. Section S6.5(a) requires the DOT symbol to be on those tires, while section S6.5(b) requires the tire identification number to be on the tires. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits tire dealers and distributors for removing those symbols from the tire, and the penalty for removing those symbols is up to $1000 for every tire from which the symbols are removed.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) also prohibits manufacturers from removing DO numbers from tires and then selling the tires to distributors as tires for off-road use. It is theoretically possible that a tire dealer or distributor could acquire a small quantity of tires from which the DOT number had been removed by a party other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Assuming that a tire dealer or distributor did acquire some of these tires from which the DOT number had been removed, the tires could be sold for off-road use only. This is because Standard No. 119 has no comparable provision to section S6 of Standard No. 109. However, these tires may never legally be sold for used on the public roads (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). A tire dealer or distributor who acquires tires from which the DOT number has been removed would be well advised to have some written statement to that effect on the sales slip. The purpose of such statement would be to prove that it was not the tire dealer or distributor who removed those numbers. When selling these tires for off-road use, the dealer or distributor should have some means of proving that he or she sold these tires with the caveat that they could only be used off-road. Either of your suggestions in question 4 (noting off-road use only on the sales slip or having the customer sign a document that the tires will only be used off-road) would be helpful for the dealer or distributor.; 4. If a tire can be sold as described in Question 3, what must a tir distributer or dealer do to sell a tire?; As noted above, either of your suggestions would be helpful for th dealer or distributor selling tires exclusively for off-road use. What the dealer must be able to do when selling these tires is show that he or she was not selling tires which do not comply with Standard No. 119 for use on the public roads.; 5. If a tire in Question 4 is sold with no-highway use intended an the customer uses it on the highway, will the tire dealer or distributor be held in violation of the provision provided he met the requirements for noting that the tire was sold for non-highway use only?; If a tire dealer or distributor can show that he or she did not remov the DOT numbers from the tires and that he or she sold the tires with the express understanding that the tires could not be used on the public roads, the dealer or distributor would not have violated any Federal requirements.; 6. Is it possible that if the tire in Question 5 fails on the highwa and causes property or personal injury as a result that the tire dealer or distributor could be held liable for the damages or injuries? Even if he did not mount the tire on a rim for the customer? This is a question of state law, which I cannot answer. However, I can say that it would be helpful for the dealer or distributor to have some proof that the customer was clearly told that these tires did not comply with the applicable Federal safety standard and could not be used on the public roads.; 7. Who, if anyone, is allowed to remove DOT numbers? a) A tire manufacturer may remove DOT numbers from its tires, as a wa of showing those tires do not satisfy the applicable standard Once a manufacturer does this, this tires may not legally be sold.; b) A retreader may remove the DOT numbers on the casing he or she i retreading. The retreader is generally required to mark its own identification number on each tire it retreads.; c) Once a tire has been sold for purposes other than resale, any perso or entity, other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, may remove any or all markings from the tire.; 8. If a retreader is allowed to remove DOT numbers, is he required t replace the removed number with his assigned DOT shop code number?; Generally speaking, the retreader is required to permanently mark tire identification number on the sidewall of each tire it retreads. 49 CFR 574.5 specifies: 'Each tire retreader...shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall...a tire identification number...' There are two minor exceptions to this provision. A tire retreader who retreads tires for his own use is not required to mark a tire identification number on those tires. Also tires which are retreaded exclusively for mileage contract purchasers are not required to bear the retreader's tire identification number if the tire contains the phrase 'for mileage contract use only' molded into or onto the tire sidewall. In all other instances, a retreader must mark its tire identification number on each tire it retreads.; 9. Tire definition: since many tire sizes and styles are use interchangeably from passenger cars to light trucks and vans, especially mini-vans, how will the DOT decide whether Standard No. 109 or 119 applies to a case of DOT number removal and subsequent sale for off-road use?; In the process of certifying their tires, manufacturers indicat whether that tire size is designated primarily for use on passenger cars or primarily for use on light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (vans). This is occasionally done by an individual manufacturer for a particular tire size, but is most often done through the publications of standardization organizations. (A standardization organization is a voluntary association composed of representatives of each of the member tire companies. The purpose of these standardization organization is to establish and promulgate sound engineering standards for tires, rims, and their allied parts.) The agency uses these listings to determine whether a tire is certified for compliance with Standard No. 109 or No. 119. If you have any questions about particular tire sizes, you may wish to contact the American standardization organization, The Tire an Rim Association, at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313.; 10. Since DOT requires certain information to appear on the sidewal of the tire, whether passenger car or other type, what, if anything can be removed from the sidewall?; A tire dealer or distributor can never legally remove any of th required information from the sidewall of tires. In the case of passenger car tires, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: The size designation, maximum permissible inflation pressure, maximum load rating, the generic name of each cord material used in the plies of the tire, the actual number of plies in the sidewall and in the tread, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type', the word 'radial' if the tire is a radial tire, the DOT symbol, the name of the manufacturer or the brand name, and the identification number. In the case of tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: the DOT symbol, the tire identification number, the tire size designation, the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure, the speed restriction of the tire if 55 mph or less, the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material in the sidewall and in the tread, the word 'tubeless' or tube type', the word 'regroovable' if the tire is designed for regrooving, the word 'radial if the tire is a radial tire, and the letter designating the load range of the tire. Removal of any of these required items of information by a tire dealer or distributor would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained above in my answer to Question 1.; 11. a.If a dealer is removing DOT numbers from tires then sellin those tires to a distributor who sells them to another dealer for resale to the customer, who is in violation of the Federal requirements?; The answer to this question depends on whether the tires are for use o passenger cars or other motor vehicles. If the tires are passenger car tires, both dealers and the distributor have violated Federal requirements. The dealer removing the DOT numbers has violated Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 1 above. The distributor and dealer selling tires which do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 109 have violated section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 11.b below.; If the tires are for other motor vehicles, the dealer removing the DO numbers has violated section 108(a)(2)(A) of the safety Act. If the tire distributor and the dealer selling the tires to a customer can show that neither one removed the DOT numbers and that the tires were sold with the express understanding that they could not be used on the public roads, neither has violated any Federal requirement.; b. If a customer buys tires with no DOT number and takes them t another dealer for mounting on his car, is that dealer in violation of Federal requirement because he mounted the tires, even though he did not sell them?; Since this question deals with passenger car tires, a dealer mountin tires without DOT number would be in violation of Federal law. Section 1089a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies, ' No person shall manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the Unite States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard...' A tire is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and a passenger car tire without DOT numbers is not in compliance with Standard No. 109. We have stated in previous interpretations that the use of noncomplying tires on pubic roads is an introduction of those tires in interstate commerce, and therefore a violation of this provision of the law. A dealer mounting noncomplying tires on a passenger car would also be considered to be introducing those tires into interstate commerce, and, therefore, also in violation of this provision.; 12. Please sum up the intent of Standards No. 109 and 119 and indicat if the tire dealer or distributor has an obligation to report to DOT any tire dealer who is removing DOT number and/or other required sidewall information and then selling these tires. Also indicate how this would be done and what steps would follow?; Standards No. 109 and 119 are intended to provide the tires purchase with necessary information for the safe operation of those tires on the purchaser's vehicle. Tire dealers and distributors cannot remove this information from the sidewall of the tires.; A tire dealer or distributor does not have a legal obligation to repor violations of these requirements, although we would appreciate if they did so. NHTSA prefers reports of violation to be in writing and addressed to: NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. If for some reason the report cannot be made in writing, a person who suspects a violation of the requirements should telephone Mr. James Gilkey at (202) 426- 2834. When the agency learns of a violation, normal enforcement procedures are begun. First, the agency investigates to see if the allegations of violations are true. If the investigation concludes that there are violations, proceedings to collect the civil penalties are instituted against the violator. As noted above, a tire dealer or distributor removing DOT number from tires would face penalties of up to a maximum of $800,000 if the dealer or distributor had removed the DOT number for 800 or more tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject please contact Mr Kratzke a the above address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3210 Open Mr. Paul Stumbaugh, Esq., 115 South Oklahoma, Mangum, OK 73554; Mr. Paul Stumbaugh Esq. 115 South Oklahoma Mangum OK 73554; Dear Mr. Stumbaugh: Please accept my apologies for our delay in responding to your lette of September 17, 1979. You asked whether your client would be required to submit to this agency's inspection or gain its approval before installing a device which connects the gas cap of an automobile to the horn wires and switches so that the horn blows continuously when the gas cap is removed by a potential thief.; Your client would not be required to obtain an inspection of hi product by this agency or to obtain an approval of his product. However, he would be required to comply with other requirements should he begin to manufacture or install his device.; Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed requires every person who begins the manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to submit certain information about his business to this agency not later than thirty days after he begins to manufacture. The information consists primarily of the name and address of the manufacturer and a description of the types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to be produced.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (copy enclosed) is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies to completed vehicles instead of fuel tanks or other fuel system components and thus is inapplicable to the manufacture of your client's device.; Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to it manufacture, your client's device must be designed and manufactured for safety. Since use of your client's product involves attaching electrical wires to the gas cap, we are particularly concerned that it be built in a way which will prevent any electrical spark from coming into contact with gasoline in the fuel tank, filler pipe or in other fuel system components or with gasoline fumes. As a manufacturer of gas cap anti-theft devices, your client would be subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (section 151 et seq., copy enclosed). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the NHTSA Administrator or your client himself, your client would be required to notify the vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.; If your client installed one of his devices in a new vehicle, i.e., vehicle which has not yet been purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale, he would be a vehicle alterer under the NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, he would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards--including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in a (sic) such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, your client would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.; If your client installed one of his devices in a used passenge vehicle, he would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . .<<<; Thus, if your client added one of his devices to a used passenge vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, he would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).; I hope that you will find this information helpful. If you have furthe questions please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3640 Open Confidential; Confidential; Dear Confidential: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of th requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked if that standard allows a manufacturer to equip a motorcycle with passenger car tires and rims.; Standard No. 120 permits a motorcycle to be equipped with passenger ca tires and rims, provided that those tires and rims meet all the requirements of the standard. Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 requires all motorcycles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service to be equipped with tires that meet either the requirements of Standard No. 109, which applies to new passenger car tires, or Standard No. 119, which applies to new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Thus, passenger car tires can be used on new motor cycles, as long as those passenger car tires are certified as complying with Standard No. 109.; Motorcycle rims are subject to two requirements. First, section S5.1. requires that the rims be listed by the manufacturer of the tires installed on the motorcycle as suitable for use with those tires. If you use rims which are the proper size for the passenger car tires to be used, this requirement is easily met by passenger car rims. Second, rims used on motorcycles must meet the rim marking requirements in section S5.2 of Standard No. 120. Passenger car rims generally do not meet these marking requirements, because the rim manufacturers do not mold the required information onto passenger car rims. However, if you can obtain passenger car rims marked with the information set forth in section S5.2 and listed by the passenger car tire manufacturer as appropriate for use with the passenger car tires, those rims could be used on new motorcycles.; A copy of this letter with your name and address deleted, along wit your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 120, has been placed in the public docket under interpretations of Standard No. 120. Should you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4185 Open Mr. Koji Tokunaga, Manager, Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc., 21415 Civic Center Driver (sic), Southfield, MI 48076-3969; Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager Engineering Isuzu Motors America Inc. 21415 Civic Center Driver (sic) Southfield MI 48076-3969; Dear Mr. Tokunaga: Thank you for your letter of December 19, 1985, to former Chief Counse Frank Berndt, asking several questions about how the requirements of Standards No. 207, Seating Systems, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, apply to an air-suspension truck seat equipped with a safety belt and a tether belt. The diagrams you enclosed with your letter show that one end of the tether belt is connected to the floor behind the seat and the other end is connected to the frame of the air suspension seat. The safety belt is also connected to the frame of the seat. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.; You first asked about which portion of the system is considered th safety belt anchorage for the purpose of Standard No. 210. S3 of the standard defines the term 'seat belt anchorage' as 'the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure.' Since, according to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the safety belt is directly attached to the seat, we would consider the attachment point on the seat to be the anchorage. It is that attachment point that transfers the seat belt load to the vehicle structure. Although not specifically discussed in your letter, we believe that the primary purpose of the tether belt is to hold the seat in position during a crash rather than to transfer the safety belt loads to the vehicle structure.; You next asked whether S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems would apply to the seat since the safety belt is secured to the seat. The answer is yes, S4.2(c) would apply. S4.2(c) sets requirements for any seat in which 'a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat.'; In your third question, you asked whether the seat would have to b tested to the requirements of Standard No. 210 if it meets the requirements of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207. The seat must meet the requirement of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 and the seat belt anchorages must separately meet the requirements of Standard No. 210. As a manufacturer, your responsibility is to certify that the seat and safety belt anchorages will meet each of those requirements. You may not have to conduct two separate tests if you can demonstrate compliance to both sets of requirements when the seat and seat belt anchorage are tested in accordance with S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207.; In your fourth question, you asked whether the struts specified i S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 can be used in testing the system. S5.1.1 provides that if 'the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments,' a strut can be secured on each side of the side for the purposes of securing a rigid crossmember used in loading the seat. In the case of your seat, the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments and thus use of the struts is permitted.; You then asked how the center of gravity of the seat is to b determined for the purpose of the test. You asked whether you are to determine the center of gravity of the entire system, including the seat stand with the air suspension and slide mechanism. In a July 14, 1983 letter to Mack Trucks, Inc., NHTSA addressed the issue of how to apply the loading required by Standard No. 207 to a heavy-duty truck seat which, as with yours, includes a suspension system and is mounted on a pedestal-like structure.; In its letter, Mack explained that it tests its seat in a two ste process. First, the seat supplier for Mack mounts the seat cushion and the seat back on a rigid structure and tests the seat to the performance requirements of Standard No. 207 by applying 20 times the weight of the seat cushion and seat frame to the seat. Then, Mack conducts a separate test of the seat cushion and seat back with those components mounted on the pedestal used in its trucks. In that test, Mack subjects those components to 20 times the weight of the seat back, seat cushion and pedestal applied at the center of gravity of the entire seat system (seat back, seat cushion, and pedestal).; In responding to Mack, NHTSA said that a manufacturer can separatel test the seat in the manner followed by Mack. Thus, a manufacturer can conduct one test of the upper section of the seat by applying 20 times the weight of those components to the upper section and then separately test the seat, as anchored to the vehicle floor, by applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal, at the center of gravity of the entire seat.; In your sixth and final question, you asked whether the tether bel would have to meet the seat belt assembly requirements of Standard No. 209. S3 of Standard No. 209 defines, in part, a seat belt assembly as 'any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle to mitigate the results of any accident. . . .' Since your tether belt is not designed to restrain an occupant, it would not be required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2952 Open Mr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your August 15, 1978, petition asking for changes i Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as that standard applies to the measurement of contact area. In particular, you ask the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to amend the standard adopting a specific test medium for measuring contact area and deleting the existing list of acceptable contact area test mediums currently established in the agency's compliance test procedures.; On July 19, 1978, the NHTSA responded to an earlier petition (Decembe 20, 1977) submitted by you on this same issue. In that letter, the NHTSA denied your requested amendment of the standard. Your current petition presents no additional data or arguments supporting your suggested modification that were not presented and thoroughly considered in our determination of your first petition. Accordingly, for the reasons specified in our July 19, 1978, letter to you, the agency denies your suggested rulemaking.; In your August 15 petition, you suggested that Standard No. 222 shoul incorporate more detailed test procedures, because some of the agency's other safety standards specify test procedures in greater detail. Standard No. 222 currently specifies test procedures to be used by manufacturers in complying with the standard. However, like all of the agency's standards, Standard No. 222's compliance test procedures are even more detailed than the requirements specified in the standard.; The NHTSA writes safety standards as simply as possible while providin the necessary detail for manufacturers to comply with their requirements. A manufacturer is then permitted to develop its own test procedures as long as its procedures are compatible with the requirement of the standard. The NHTSA, itself, devises tests that it uses for testing a vehicle's compliance. Whenever possible, these tests are available to manufacturers, and manufacturers are free to adopt them or to proceed with their own test procedures. Your twice- submitted petition would have the NHTSA rewrite its standards in a manner that would specify test procedures in greater detail. Such an approach would increase the complexity of safety standards if done uniformly to all standards and would in fact be detrimental to small manufacturers. The purpose of allowing some variation in details of test procedures is to permit a manufacturer to develop test procedures that are tailored to that manufacturer's needs and constraints. For example, certain test procedures used by the NHTSA may be too costly for a small manufacturer. Under the current compliance system, any manufacturer can develop a less expensive alternative test methodology. Under the system that you propose, however, a manufacturer would be required to adopt the test procedures specified in the standard. Since your suggestion, if applied to all safety standards, could add costs to the agency's regulations without achieving any significant benefits, the NHTSA determines that your suggested amendment is not in the public interest.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1387 Open Mrs. L. M. Thompson, 9624 4th St., N. E., Everett, WA 98205; Mrs. L. M. Thompson 9624 4th St. N. E. Everett WA 98205; Dear Mrs. Thompson: I would like to thank you for your interest in the safety benefits o the interlock system and for forwarding the Seattle newspaper advertisement which offers a method to bypass the seat belt interlock.; The interlock standard only requires that new vehicles be equipped wit required safety equipment. Therefore a purchaser may have the system modified to accommodate circumstances, such as physical incapacity, which makes use of the belts unwise or inconvenient.; The advertisement of a system to circumvent the standard, however, is different matter, and whether it is legally permitted is a conclusion which the courts will have to determine. This agency is reviewing the legal remedies available which might permit removal of such a product from the market. Having promulgated the interlock option as part of the occupant crash protection standard, whose validity was sustained in court, we are committed to taking all possible actions to insure its effectiveness.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2401 Open Alfred Teves GMBH, 6 Frankfurt/Main 2, Postfach 119155, West Germany; Alfred Teves GMBH 6 Frankfurt/Main 2 Postfach 119155 West Germany; Dear Sirs: #This responds to the Alfred Teves GMBH (Teves) petition o April 9, 1976, for amendment of S5.2.1 of Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to eliminate the striping requirement in the case of hose used in assemblies that have 'keyed' end fittings at both ends. We interpret 'keyed' fittings to mean those that can be installed in only one (or possibly several) orientation(s) to the vehicle. #This is to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined to grant Teves' petition with regard to hose that is assembled into an assembly whose fittings permit their installation into the vehicle with only one orientation. Detailed reasons for the limitations expressed in this letter will accompany any notice that proposed this change. #You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule is made on the basis of all available information in accordance with statutory criteria. #Your letter incorrectly characterized the amendment of S5.2.2 that was proposed in Notice 19 of docket 1-5 (40 Fr 55365, November 28, 1975) and made final in Notice 21 (41 FR 28505, July 12, 1976). The amendment only stated that the labeling required on hose need not be present after the hose has become part of a brake hose assembly or after it has been installed in a motor vehicle. The conclusion in the second paragraph of your letter that '...brake hose does not require labelling according to S5.2.2...' is therefore incorrect. #With regard to your comments on Standard No. 116, Brake Fluids, I assume that you were referring to the agency's proposed definition of 'brake fluid' published on December 5, 1975 (40 FR 56928). I also assume that the phrase 'polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock' in the proposed definition led you to conclude that only polychloroprene inner tube stock would be allowed for brake hose construction. This is incorrect. All of the materials specified in the definition, including SBR, EPR, CR, and NR, are considered suitable for use in brake hoses. #Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam2051 Open Mr. Albert A. Dawes, Chief, Procurement Law Division, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, Department of the Army, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. Albert A. Dawes Chief Procurement Law Division U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command Department of the Army Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Dawes: This is in response to your letter of August 29, 1975, in which you as whether the exemption provided by 49 CFR S 571.7(c) applies to all commercial vehicles manufactured and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States.; All vehicles (including commercial vehicles) meeting the definition o 'motor vehicle' in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1392(3)) that are manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity to contractual specifications are exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under 49 CFR S 571.7(c).; We hope this information is of assistance. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting 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.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam5448 Open Ms. H. Kristie Jones, President P.J.'s Fabrication, Inc. P.O. Box 880 Stanfield, OR 97875; Ms. H. Kristie Jones President P.J.'s Fabrication Inc. P.O. Box 880 Stanfield OR 97875; "Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). You explained that P.J.'s Fabrication (P.J.), which manufactures trailers, entered into a contract with Coulson Commander Trailers (Coulson) to manufacture trailers that will be marketed under Coulson's name. Skip Jones of your company has told Dorothy Nakama of my staff that he does not believe Coulson has any manufacturing capability or that Coulson manufactures trailers. You ask whether under Standard No. 115, P.J. assigns the VIN to the vehicles. The answer is yes. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that 'Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer.' The term 'manufacturer' is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person 'manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.' According to the information provided in your letter, P.J. fits this definition of a manufacturer. Moreover, you also state that 'P.J.'s accepts responsibility for warranty work and quality control to meet DOT specifications.' This statement indicates that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), as a manfacturer must under our certification requirements. Accordingly, all the information presented to us indicates that P.J. is the trailer manufacturer, and it is therefore appropriate for P.J. to assign the VIN to the trailers. As noted above, you indicate that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Since FMVSS No. 115 applies to the trailers and requires each new trailer to have a VIN, P.J. must assign a VIN to the vehicle in order to correctly certify that the vehicle meets the FMVSS's (namely, FMVSS No. 115). In other words, since the FMVSS's require a VIN, the trailers must have a VIN by the time P.J. certifies the vehicles as complying with the FMVSS's. You also asked which company issues the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO), that your letter referred to as the 'Certificate of Origin.' Since MSOs are regulated by state law, for information about each state's requirements, you must contact the state's department of motor vehicles. A source of information about each state's requirements is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22203. The telephone number for the AAMVA is (703) 522-4200. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2677 Open Mr. James Tydings, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 1408 Courtesy Road, P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. James Tydings Thomas Built Buses Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your September 15, 1977, letter asking severa questions pertaining to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.; You first ask whether side-facing seats installed in school buses fo purposes of transporting handicapped or convalescent passengers are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 222. The answer to your question is yes. these seats are not considered school bus seats' as that term is defined in S4 of the standard. The remaining forward-facing seats installed in the same bus, however, would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard.; In a related matter, you ask what your responsibility would be should non-handicapped passenger use a handicapped passenger seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) realized when it adopted the limited seating exception applicable to seats for the handicapped that these seats might on occasion be used by non-handicapped passengers. The agency is continuing to study such problems in order to ensure that buses designed to accommodate handicapped passengers provide a sufficient level of safety for all individuals they routinely transport. Standard No. 222 does not place a responsibility upon school bus users to permit only handicapped students to sit in side-facing seats. Of course, any passenger seated in such a seat will not benefit from the protection provided by forward-facing seats that meet the requirements of the Federal standard.; In a final question, you ask whether the position of a wheelchair i close proximity to the rear emergency exit of a bus would violate S5.4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 217. The NHTSA will measure the opening using the described parallelepiped device as the vehicle is constructed in its unloaded condition. Since the wheelchair would not be present when the vehicle was in its unloaded condition, your location of the wheelchair would not violate the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3965 Open Mr. Tom Cooney, Executive Editor, Tire Review, 11 South Forge Street, Akron, Ohio 44304; Mr. Tom Cooney Executive Editor Tire Review 11 South Forge Street Akron Ohio 44304; Dear Mr. Cooney: This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, askin several questions about the removal of the DOT numbers from the sidewall of tires. In a February 5, 1985 telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, you stated that the answers to all of your questions except number 7 should address the situation only for tire dealers and distributors. With that limitation, I have set forth below the answers to each of your questions in the order presented in your letter.; 1. Under what circumstances, if any, may a DOT number be removed fro a passenger car tire?; There are no circumstances in which a tire dealer or distributor ca legally remove a DOT number from a passenger car tire. It is unclear when you refer to a 'DOT number' whether you are referring to just the tire identification number required to be on every new and retreaded tire by 49 CFR Part 574, or that identification number together with the DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is required to appear on all new tires for highway use and retreaded passenger car tires as a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire fully complies with the applicable Federal safety standard.; In any case, Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires - passenger cars (49 CFR S571.109) applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 requires that the symbol DOT be on the tire, and section S4.3.1 requires that the tire identification number be on the tire. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) specifies '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 an...item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' By removing the DOT identification number, a dealer or distributor would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tire which is included on the tire in compliance with Standard No. 109. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108. This agency would consider each tire from which the DOT number had been removed to be a separate violation.; 2. If the answer to question 1 is none, is there any situation in which a passenger car tire can b sold for farm or off- road use provided that the DOT number has been removed?; There is no situation in which a passenger car tire with the DOT numbe removed can be sold for any purpose. Section S6 of Standard No. 109 reads as follows:; S6 Nonconforming tires. No tire that is designed for use on passenge cars and manufactured on or after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to all the requirements of this standard, shall be sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, for any purpose.; A passenger car tire without the DOT number does not conform to al requirements of the standard, so its sale for any purpose is expressly prohibited. A violation of this section would subject the seller to a potential penalty of up to $1000 for each nonconforming tire sold.; 3. Under what circumstances can tires for use on motor vehicles othe than passenger cars have the DOT number removed and the tires sold for off-road or farm use only?; This is really a two part question. Again, there are no circumstance in which a tire dealer or distributor can legally remove the DOT number from these tires. Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119) applies to these tires. Section S6.5(a) requires the DOT symbol to be on those tires, while section S6.5(b) requires the tire identification number to be on the tires. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits tire dealers and distributors for removing those symbols from the tire, and the penalty for removing those symbols is up to $1000 for every tire from which the symbols are removed.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) also prohibits manufacturers from removing DO numbers from tires and then selling the tires to distributors as tires for off-road use. It is theoretically possible that a tire dealer or distributor could acquire a small quantity of tires from which the DOT number had been removed by a party other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Assuming that a tire dealer or distributor did acquire some of these tires from which the DOT number had been removed, the tires could be sold for off-road use only. This is because Standard No. 119 has no comparable provision to section S6 of Standard No. 109. However, these tires may never legally be sold for used on the public roads (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). A tire dealer or distributor who acquires tires from which the DOT number has been removed would be well advised to have some written statement to that effect on the sales slip. The purpose of such statement would be to prove that it was not the tire dealer or distributor who removed those numbers. When selling these tires for off-road use, the dealer or distributor should have some means of proving that he or she sold these tires with the caveat that they could only be used off-road. Either of your suggestions in question 4 (noting off-road use only on the sales slip or having the customer sign a document that the tires will only be used off-road) would be helpful for the dealer or distributor.; 4. If a tire can be sold as described in Question 3, what must a tir distributer or dealer do to sell a tire?; As noted above, either of your suggestions would be helpful for th dealer or distributor selling tires exclusively for off-road use. What the dealer must be able to do when selling these tires is show that he or she was not selling tires which do not comply with Standard No. 119 for use on the public roads.; 5. If a tire in Question 4 is sold with no-highway use intended an the customer uses it on the highway, will the tire dealer or distributor be held in violation of the provision provided he met the requirements for noting that the tire was sold for non-highway use only?; If a tire dealer or distributor can show that he or she did not remov the DOT numbers from the tires and that he or she sold the tires with the express understanding that the tires could not be used on the public roads, the dealer or distributor would not have violated any Federal requirements.; 6. Is it possible that if the tire in Question 5 fails on the highwa and causes property or personal injury as a result that the tire dealer or distributor could be held liable for the damages or injuries? Even if he did not mount the tire on a rim for the customer? This is a question of state law, which I cannot answer. However, I can say that it would be helpful for the dealer or distributor to have some proof that the customer was clearly told that these tires did not comply with the applicable Federal safety standard and could not be used on the public roads.; 7. Who, if anyone, is allowed to remove DOT numbers? a) A tire manufacturer may remove DOT numbers from its tires, as a wa of showing those tires do not satisfy the applicable standard Once a manufacturer does this, this tires may not legally be sold.; b) A retreader may remove the DOT numbers on the casing he or she i retreading. The retreader is generally required to mark its own identification number on each tire it retreads.; c) Once a tire has been sold for purposes other than resale, any perso or entity, other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, may remove any or all markings from the tire.; 8. If a retreader is allowed to remove DOT numbers, is he required t replace the removed number with his assigned DOT shop code number?; Generally speaking, the retreader is required to permanently mark tire identification number on the sidewall of each tire it retreads. 49 CFR 574.5 specifies: 'Each tire retreader...shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall...a tire identification number...' There are two minor exceptions to this provision. A tire retreader who retreads tires for his own use is not required to mark a tire identification number on those tires. Also tires which are retreaded exclusively for mileage contract purchasers are not required to bear the retreader's tire identification number if the tire contains the phrase 'for mileage contract use only' molded into or onto the tire sidewall. In all other instances, a retreader must mark its tire identification number on each tire it retreads.; 9. Tire definition: since many tire sizes and styles are use interchangeably from passenger cars to light trucks and vans, especially mini-vans, how will the DOT decide whether Standard No. 109 or 119 applies to a case of DOT number removal and subsequent sale for off-road use?; In the process of certifying their tires, manufacturers indicat whether that tire size is designated primarily for use on passenger cars or primarily for use on light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (vans). This is occasionally done by an individual manufacturer for a particular tire size, but is most often done through the publications of standardization organizations. (A standardization organization is a voluntary association composed of representatives of each of the member tire companies. The purpose of these standardization organization is to establish and promulgate sound engineering standards for tires, rims, and their allied parts.) The agency uses these listings to determine whether a tire is certified for compliance with Standard No. 109 or No. 119. If you have any questions about particular tire sizes, you may wish to contact the American standardization organization, The Tire an Rim Association, at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313.; 10. Since DOT requires certain information to appear on the sidewal of the tire, whether passenger car or other type, what, if anything can be removed from the sidewall?; A tire dealer or distributor can never legally remove any of th required information from the sidewall of tires. In the case of passenger car tires, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: The size designation, maximum permissible inflation pressure, maximum load rating, the generic name of each cord material used in the plies of the tire, the actual number of plies in the sidewall and in the tread, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type', the word 'radial' if the tire is a radial tire, the DOT symbol, the name of the manufacturer or the brand name, and the identification number. In the case of tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: the DOT symbol, the tire identification number, the tire size designation, the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure, the speed restriction of the tire if 55 mph or less, the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material in the sidewall and in the tread, the word 'tubeless' or tube type', the word 'regroovable' if the tire is designed for regrooving, the word 'radial if the tire is a radial tire, and the letter designating the load range of the tire. Removal of any of these required items of information by a tire dealer or distributor would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained above in my answer to Question 1.; 11. a.If a dealer is removing DOT numbers from tires then sellin those tires to a distributor who sells them to another dealer for resale to the customer, who is in violation of the Federal requirements?; The answer to this question depends on whether the tires are for use o passenger cars or other motor vehicles. If the tires are passenger car tires, both dealers and the distributor have violated Federal requirements. The dealer removing the DOT numbers has violated Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 1 above. The distributor and dealer selling tires which do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 109 have violated section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 11.b below.; If the tires are for other motor vehicles, the dealer removing the DO numbers has violated section 108(a)(2)(A) of the safety Act. If the tire distributor and the dealer selling the tires to a customer can show that neither one removed the DOT numbers and that the tires were sold with the express understanding that they could not be used on the public roads, neither has violated any Federal requirement.; b. If a customer buys tires with no DOT number and takes them t another dealer for mounting on his car, is that dealer in violation of Federal requirement because he mounted the tires, even though he did not sell them?; Since this question deals with passenger car tires, a dealer mountin tires without DOT number would be in violation of Federal law. Section 1089a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies, ' No person shall manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the Unite States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard...' A tire is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and a passenger car tire without DOT numbers is not in compliance with Standard No. 109. We have stated in previous interpretations that the use of noncomplying tires on pubic roads is an introduction of those tires in interstate commerce, and therefore a violation of this provision of the law. A dealer mounting noncomplying tires on a passenger car would also be considered to be introducing those tires into interstate commerce, and, therefore, also in violation of this provision.; 12. Please sum up the intent of Standards No. 109 and 119 and indicat if the tire dealer or distributor has an obligation to report to DOT any tire dealer who is removing DOT number and/or other required sidewall information and then selling these tires. Also indicate how this would be done and what steps would follow?; Standards No. 109 and 119 are intended to provide the tires purchase with necessary information for the safe operation of those tires on the purchaser's vehicle. Tire dealers and distributors cannot remove this information from the sidewall of the tires.; A tire dealer or distributor does not have a legal obligation to repor violations of these requirements, although we would appreciate if they did so. NHTSA prefers reports of violation to be in writing and addressed to: NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. If for some reason the report cannot be made in writing, a person who suspects a violation of the requirements should telephone Mr. James Gilkey at (202) 426- 2834. When the agency learns of a violation, normal enforcement procedures are begun. First, the agency investigates to see if the allegations of violations are true. If the investigation concludes that there are violations, proceedings to collect the civil penalties are instituted against the violator. As noted above, a tire dealer or distributor removing DOT number from tires would face penalties of up to a maximum of $800,000 if the dealer or distributor had removed the DOT number for 800 or more tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject please contact Mr Kratzke a the above address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3210 Open Mr. Paul Stumbaugh, Esq., 115 South Oklahoma, Mangum, OK 73554; Mr. Paul Stumbaugh Esq. 115 South Oklahoma Mangum OK 73554; Dear Mr. Stumbaugh: Please accept my apologies for our delay in responding to your lette of September 17, 1979. You asked whether your client would be required to submit to this agency's inspection or gain its approval before installing a device which connects the gas cap of an automobile to the horn wires and switches so that the horn blows continuously when the gas cap is removed by a potential thief.; Your client would not be required to obtain an inspection of hi product by this agency or to obtain an approval of his product. However, he would be required to comply with other requirements should he begin to manufacture or install his device.; Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed requires every person who begins the manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to submit certain information about his business to this agency not later than thirty days after he begins to manufacture. The information consists primarily of the name and address of the manufacturer and a description of the types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to be produced.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (copy enclosed) is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies to completed vehicles instead of fuel tanks or other fuel system components and thus is inapplicable to the manufacture of your client's device.; Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to it manufacture, your client's device must be designed and manufactured for safety. Since use of your client's product involves attaching electrical wires to the gas cap, we are particularly concerned that it be built in a way which will prevent any electrical spark from coming into contact with gasoline in the fuel tank, filler pipe or in other fuel system components or with gasoline fumes. As a manufacturer of gas cap anti-theft devices, your client would be subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (section 151 et seq., copy enclosed). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the NHTSA Administrator or your client himself, your client would be required to notify the vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.; If your client installed one of his devices in a new vehicle, i.e., vehicle which has not yet been purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale, he would be a vehicle alterer under the NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, he would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards--including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in a (sic) such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, your client would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.; If your client installed one of his devices in a used passenge vehicle, he would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . .<<<; Thus, if your client added one of his devices to a used passenge vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, he would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).; I hope that you will find this information helpful. If you have furthe questions please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3640 Open Confidential; Confidential; Dear Confidential: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of th requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked if that standard allows a manufacturer to equip a motorcycle with passenger car tires and rims.; Standard No. 120 permits a motorcycle to be equipped with passenger ca tires and rims, provided that those tires and rims meet all the requirements of the standard. Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 requires all motorcycles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service to be equipped with tires that meet either the requirements of Standard No. 109, which applies to new passenger car tires, or Standard No. 119, which applies to new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Thus, passenger car tires can be used on new motor cycles, as long as those passenger car tires are certified as complying with Standard No. 109.; Motorcycle rims are subject to two requirements. First, section S5.1. requires that the rims be listed by the manufacturer of the tires installed on the motorcycle as suitable for use with those tires. If you use rims which are the proper size for the passenger car tires to be used, this requirement is easily met by passenger car rims. Second, rims used on motorcycles must meet the rim marking requirements in section S5.2 of Standard No. 120. Passenger car rims generally do not meet these marking requirements, because the rim manufacturers do not mold the required information onto passenger car rims. However, if you can obtain passenger car rims marked with the information set forth in section S5.2 and listed by the passenger car tire manufacturer as appropriate for use with the passenger car tires, those rims could be used on new motorcycles.; A copy of this letter with your name and address deleted, along wit your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 120, has been placed in the public docket under interpretations of Standard No. 120. Should you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4185 Open Mr. Koji Tokunaga, Manager, Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc., 21415 Civic Center Driver (sic), Southfield, MI 48076-3969; Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager Engineering Isuzu Motors America Inc. 21415 Civic Center Driver (sic) Southfield MI 48076-3969; Dear Mr. Tokunaga: Thank you for your letter of December 19, 1985, to former Chief Counse Frank Berndt, asking several questions about how the requirements of Standards No. 207, Seating Systems, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, apply to an air-suspension truck seat equipped with a safety belt and a tether belt. The diagrams you enclosed with your letter show that one end of the tether belt is connected to the floor behind the seat and the other end is connected to the frame of the air suspension seat. The safety belt is also connected to the frame of the seat. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.; You first asked about which portion of the system is considered th safety belt anchorage for the purpose of Standard No. 210. S3 of the standard defines the term 'seat belt anchorage' as 'the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure.' Since, according to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the safety belt is directly attached to the seat, we would consider the attachment point on the seat to be the anchorage. It is that attachment point that transfers the seat belt load to the vehicle structure. Although not specifically discussed in your letter, we believe that the primary purpose of the tether belt is to hold the seat in position during a crash rather than to transfer the safety belt loads to the vehicle structure.; You next asked whether S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems would apply to the seat since the safety belt is secured to the seat. The answer is yes, S4.2(c) would apply. S4.2(c) sets requirements for any seat in which 'a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat.'; In your third question, you asked whether the seat would have to b tested to the requirements of Standard No. 210 if it meets the requirements of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207. The seat must meet the requirement of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 and the seat belt anchorages must separately meet the requirements of Standard No. 210. As a manufacturer, your responsibility is to certify that the seat and safety belt anchorages will meet each of those requirements. You may not have to conduct two separate tests if you can demonstrate compliance to both sets of requirements when the seat and seat belt anchorage are tested in accordance with S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207.; In your fourth question, you asked whether the struts specified i S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 can be used in testing the system. S5.1.1 provides that if 'the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments,' a strut can be secured on each side of the side for the purposes of securing a rigid crossmember used in loading the seat. In the case of your seat, the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments and thus use of the struts is permitted.; You then asked how the center of gravity of the seat is to b determined for the purpose of the test. You asked whether you are to determine the center of gravity of the entire system, including the seat stand with the air suspension and slide mechanism. In a July 14, 1983 letter to Mack Trucks, Inc., NHTSA addressed the issue of how to apply the loading required by Standard No. 207 to a heavy-duty truck seat which, as with yours, includes a suspension system and is mounted on a pedestal-like structure.; In its letter, Mack explained that it tests its seat in a two ste process. First, the seat supplier for Mack mounts the seat cushion and the seat back on a rigid structure and tests the seat to the performance requirements of Standard No. 207 by applying 20 times the weight of the seat cushion and seat frame to the seat. Then, Mack conducts a separate test of the seat cushion and seat back with those components mounted on the pedestal used in its trucks. In that test, Mack subjects those components to 20 times the weight of the seat back, seat cushion and pedestal applied at the center of gravity of the entire seat system (seat back, seat cushion, and pedestal).; In responding to Mack, NHTSA said that a manufacturer can separatel test the seat in the manner followed by Mack. Thus, a manufacturer can conduct one test of the upper section of the seat by applying 20 times the weight of those components to the upper section and then separately test the seat, as anchored to the vehicle floor, by applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal, at the center of gravity of the entire seat.; In your sixth and final question, you asked whether the tether bel would have to meet the seat belt assembly requirements of Standard No. 209. S3 of Standard No. 209 defines, in part, a seat belt assembly as 'any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle to mitigate the results of any accident. . . .' Since your tether belt is not designed to restrain an occupant, it would not be required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2952 Open Mr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your August 15, 1978, petition asking for changes i Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as that standard applies to the measurement of contact area. In particular, you ask the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to amend the standard adopting a specific test medium for measuring contact area and deleting the existing list of acceptable contact area test mediums currently established in the agency's compliance test procedures.; On July 19, 1978, the NHTSA responded to an earlier petition (Decembe 20, 1977) submitted by you on this same issue. In that letter, the NHTSA denied your requested amendment of the standard. Your current petition presents no additional data or arguments supporting your suggested modification that were not presented and thoroughly considered in our determination of your first petition. Accordingly, for the reasons specified in our July 19, 1978, letter to you, the agency denies your suggested rulemaking.; In your August 15 petition, you suggested that Standard No. 222 shoul incorporate more detailed test procedures, because some of the agency's other safety standards specify test procedures in greater detail. Standard No. 222 currently specifies test procedures to be used by manufacturers in complying with the standard. However, like all of the agency's standards, Standard No. 222's compliance test procedures are even more detailed than the requirements specified in the standard.; The NHTSA writes safety standards as simply as possible while providin the necessary detail for manufacturers to comply with their requirements. A manufacturer is then permitted to develop its own test procedures as long as its procedures are compatible with the requirement of the standard. The NHTSA, itself, devises tests that it uses for testing a vehicle's compliance. Whenever possible, these tests are available to manufacturers, and manufacturers are free to adopt them or to proceed with their own test procedures. Your twice- submitted petition would have the NHTSA rewrite its standards in a manner that would specify test procedures in greater detail. Such an approach would increase the complexity of safety standards if done uniformly to all standards and would in fact be detrimental to small manufacturers. The purpose of allowing some variation in details of test procedures is to permit a manufacturer to develop test procedures that are tailored to that manufacturer's needs and constraints. For example, certain test procedures used by the NHTSA may be too costly for a small manufacturer. Under the current compliance system, any manufacturer can develop a less expensive alternative test methodology. Under the system that you propose, however, a manufacturer would be required to adopt the test procedures specified in the standard. Since your suggestion, if applied to all safety standards, could add costs to the agency's regulations without achieving any significant benefits, the NHTSA determines that your suggested amendment is not in the public interest.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1387 Open Mrs. L. M. Thompson, 9624 4th St., N. E., Everett, WA 98205; Mrs. L. M. Thompson 9624 4th St. N. E. Everett WA 98205; Dear Mrs. Thompson: I would like to thank you for your interest in the safety benefits o the interlock system and for forwarding the Seattle newspaper advertisement which offers a method to bypass the seat belt interlock.; The interlock standard only requires that new vehicles be equipped wit required safety equipment. Therefore a purchaser may have the system modified to accommodate circumstances, such as physical incapacity, which makes use of the belts unwise or inconvenient.; The advertisement of a system to circumvent the standard, however, is different matter, and whether it is legally permitted is a conclusion which the courts will have to determine. This agency is reviewing the legal remedies available which might permit removal of such a product from the market. Having promulgated the interlock option as part of the occupant crash protection standard, whose validity was sustained in court, we are committed to taking all possible actions to insure its effectiveness.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2401 Open Alfred Teves GMBH, 6 Frankfurt/Main 2, Postfach 119155, West Germany; Alfred Teves GMBH 6 Frankfurt/Main 2 Postfach 119155 West Germany; Dear Sirs: #This responds to the Alfred Teves GMBH (Teves) petition o April 9, 1976, for amendment of S5.2.1 of Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to eliminate the striping requirement in the case of hose used in assemblies that have 'keyed' end fittings at both ends. We interpret 'keyed' fittings to mean those that can be installed in only one (or possibly several) orientation(s) to the vehicle. #This is to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined to grant Teves' petition with regard to hose that is assembled into an assembly whose fittings permit their installation into the vehicle with only one orientation. Detailed reasons for the limitations expressed in this letter will accompany any notice that proposed this change. #You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule is made on the basis of all available information in accordance with statutory criteria. #Your letter incorrectly characterized the amendment of S5.2.2 that was proposed in Notice 19 of docket 1-5 (40 Fr 55365, November 28, 1975) and made final in Notice 21 (41 FR 28505, July 12, 1976). The amendment only stated that the labeling required on hose need not be present after the hose has become part of a brake hose assembly or after it has been installed in a motor vehicle. The conclusion in the second paragraph of your letter that '...brake hose does not require labelling according to S5.2.2...' is therefore incorrect. #With regard to your comments on Standard No. 116, Brake Fluids, I assume that you were referring to the agency's proposed definition of 'brake fluid' published on December 5, 1975 (40 FR 56928). I also assume that the phrase 'polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock' in the proposed definition led you to conclude that only polychloroprene inner tube stock would be allowed for brake hose construction. This is incorrect. All of the materials specified in the definition, including SBR, EPR, CR, and NR, are considered suitable for use in brake hoses. #Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam2051 Open Mr. Albert A. Dawes, Chief, Procurement Law Division, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, Department of the Army, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. Albert A. Dawes Chief Procurement Law Division U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command Department of the Army Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Dawes: This is in response to your letter of August 29, 1975, in which you as whether the exemption provided by 49 CFR S 571.7(c) applies to all commercial vehicles manufactured and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States.; All vehicles (including commercial vehicles) meeting the definition o 'motor vehicle' in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1392(3)) that are manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity to contractual specifications are exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under 49 CFR S 571.7(c).; We hope this information is of assistance. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam5448

ID: aiam2677

ID: aiam3965

ID: aiam3210

ID: aiam3640

ID: aiam4185

ID: aiam2952

ID: aiam1387

ID: aiam2401

ID: aiam2051

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?