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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam5038OpenMr. L.J. Sharman 314 Lakeside Drive South Surfside Beach, SC 29575; Mr. L.J. Sharman 314 Lakeside Drive South Surfside Beach SC 29575; "Dear Mr. Sharman: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding compliance testing results. Your question arises in the context of the testing procedures set forth in Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. (49 CFR 571.302). As explained below, the agency makes available all of its compliance test results through its Technical Reference Division. However, the agency has no such requirements for manufacturers or other persons to keep records concerning any test results. Nevertheless, a manufacturer would be well advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with an applicable safety standard. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the 'Safety Act') gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each of the agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions that this agency will use to assure whether the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested is in compliance with the safety standard. NHTSA follows the established test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. The results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public in the agency's Technical Reference Division. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results. However, if the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised 'due care' in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in the manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish due care. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)). I note that the agency has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle malfunctions. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2207OpenMr. Arlen E. Riggs, Legal Manager, Peterbilt Motors Company, 38801 Cherry Street, P.O. Box 404, Newark, CA, 94560; Mr. Arlen E. Riggs Legal Manager Peterbilt Motors Company 38801 Cherry Street P.O. Box 404 Newark CA 94560; Dear Mr. Riggs: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1976, asking whether i would violate Standard No. 108 to wire truck tractors to permit 'the customers to activate the truck trailer tail lamps when the tractor marker lamps are activated rather than when the headlamps are activated.'; S4.5.3 of Standard No. 108 which requires the tail lamps to b illuminated when the headlamps are activated applies only to single motor vehicles and not combinations thereof. Therefore we confirm your understanding that the wiring circuitry you propose to install will not violate Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0390OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., Suite 406, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. David J. Humphreys Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. Suite 406 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1971, concerning th application of sections 111 and 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1400, 1402), and the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573), to manufacturers of slide-in campers.; In your letter, you state your conclusion that slide-in campers ar items of motor vehicle equipment, that consequently, sections 113(a), 113(b), 113(c), 113(d) and 113(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1402(a), 1402(b), 1402(c), 1402(d), 1402(e)) do not apply to manufacturers of slide-in campers, that Part 573, 'Defect Reports,' similarly does not apply to them, but that section 111 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1400) does apply to them. You request that we confirm these conclusions or advise you in which areas we disagree.; You are correct in concluding that a slide-in camper is an item o motor vehicle equipment under the Act. The Administration's position has not changed since publication of the ruling of March 26, 1968 (33 F.R. 5020), to which you refer, concerning the classification of slide-in campers as items of motor vehicle equipment. We also agree with your conclusion that sections 113(a), 113(b), and 113(c) of the Act, do not directly apply to manufacturers of slide-in campers. They apply, as you state, only to manufacturers of motor vehicles.; We also agree with your conclusion that section 113(d) of the Act (1 U.S.C. 1402(d)) and Part 573, Defect Reports, do not apply to manufacturers of slide- in campers or other motor vehicle equipment. We also agree that section 111 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1400) does apply to both equipment and vehicle manufacturers.; We do not agree, however, with your position that section 113(e) of th Act (15 U.S.C. S 1402(e)) applies only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. To read section 113(e) in this manner would allow one of the basic remedial provisions of the Act to be ineffective in dealing with a vast segment of the industry that the Act is intended to regulate. Our position is that section 113(e) applies both to manufacturers of motor vehicles and to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and that sections 113(a), 113(b) and 113(c) as referenced in that section also apply to both types of manufacturers. We believe this conclusion to be clearly reflected in the language of these sections. While the language of section 113(a) refers only to manufacturers of motor vehicles, section 113(e) refers with equal emphasis to manufacturers of a motor vehicle *or* item of motor vehicle equipment.; To summarize, while manufacturers of slide-in campers or other moto vehicle equipment are not obligated to conduct voluntary defect notification campaigns pursuant to section 113(a), should the Administrator determine, pursuant to section 113(e), that a slide-in camper or other item of motor vehicle fails to comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard, or contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety, then the Administrator is authorized to order the manufacturer of that item of motor vehicle equipment to conduct a notification campaign, as specified in sections 113(a), 113(b), and 113(c). Failure or refusal by the manufacturer to do so may result in a violation of section 108(a)(4) of the Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(4)) and the impositions of the sanctions specified in sections 109 (15 U.S.C. S 1398) and 110 (15 U.S.C. S 1399).; I wish to point out that, in practice, manufacturers of slide-i campers or other motor vehicle equipment and manufacturers of motor vehicles may be treated similarly under section 113. When the Administration has reason to believe that either a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment fails to comply with an applicable standard or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is generally requested to discuss the matter informally before a formal determination is made pursuant to section 113(e). Most manufacturers have, at this point, and irrespective of whether they manufacture vehicles or equipment, voluntarily offered in the best interests of safety to notify owners of record of the problem.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5468OpenMr. Michael Love Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno, Nevada 89520-3911; Mr. Michael Love Manager Compliance Porsche Cars North America Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno Nevada 89520-3911; Dear Mr. Love: We have received your letter of November 29, 1994 asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 591. Specifically, Porsche wishes to import vehicles for the Canadian market through the Port of Charleston, where certain processing activities will be performed on the cars before they are exported to Canada. The temporary importation of Canadian-market cars would be through 591.5(c) which allows importation 'solely for export', provided that the vehicle is so labeled. You have asked for our concurrence in your interpretation of 591.5(c). We agree that Porsche may import and export Canadian-market cars under this section of the importation regulation. You foresee a situation in which 'a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U.S. customer'. Porsche would like to be able to convert the vehicle to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards after importation and before it leaves Porsche's control. Porsche would also like to be able to re-import from Canada into the U.S. vehicles that would be converted to U.S. specifications. You have asked for confirmation that these operations would also be permissible under 591.5(c). Importation of noncomplying motor vehicles into the United States and their subsequent conversion to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be accomplished through the mechanisms established by Congress in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (now 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.). First, NHTSA must have decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. Second, a vehicle intended for sale must be imported under bond by one who has been designated a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, who will undertake to bring the vehicle into compliance and to submit appropriate proof of this to NHTSA. Porsche may become a Registered Importer by filing an application under Part 592. If a vehicle intended for the Canadian market has been temporarily imported under 591.5(c), and Porsche then wishes to convert it to U.S. specifications rather than export it to Canada, you should telephone Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (202-366-2830), to apprise him of the situation. We see no problem in this as long as NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation and Porsche provides a compliance package, in accordance with the requirements of Parts 592 and 593. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2657OpenMr. Charles E. Klatt, Senior Director, Codes, Legalities, Testing & Training, Holiday Rambler Corporation, 65528 St. Road 19, Wakarusa, IN, 46573; Mr. Charles E. Klatt Senior Director Codes Legalities Testing & Training Holiday Rambler Corporation 65528 St. Road 19 Wakarusa IN 46573; Dear Mr. Klatt: This responds to your June 1, 1977, letter asking several question about the applicability of Federal safety standards to travel trailers and motor homes.; You first ask whether bed sheets and decorative bedspreads shipped wit a motor home are required to meet Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. The items required to meet the standard are listed in S4.1 of the standard. That list does not include sheets or bedspreads. Therefore, they are not required to comply with the standard.; In a related question pertaining to Standard No. 302, you ask whethe 'mattress cover' as that term is used in the standard refers to the permanent mattress ticking or to a removable mattress cover. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the standard applies to both the permanent ticking and the removable cover. Therefore, both must comply with the requirements of Standard NO. 302.; In a question pertaining to Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, yo ask whether it is permissible to label a bench seat 'not for occupancy while vehicle is in motion' on one label or whether a seat must be labeled at each seating position. Standard No. 207 requires only one label for a bench seat in a motor home. You should note that Standard No. 207 does not apply to travel trailers.; You ask whether the NHTSA has jurisdiction over safety-related defect in motor homes not covered by safety standards. The agency has general defect jurisdiction granted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) for all safety-related motor vehicle defects. The NHTSA's defect jurisdiction also extends to the nonoperational safety of a vehicle.; In a final question you ask whether the agency has jurisdiction ove travel trailers. The NHTSA has jurisdiction over 'any motor vehicle' which is defined in the Act as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power...' Therefore, the NHTSA has jurisdiction over travel trailers that is identical to its jurisdiction over any other motor vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5192OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; "Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993 regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1. Your two questions and the answer to each follows. 1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21, Notice No. 2 proposed the use of 'one inch wide' retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a 'minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape.' The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a 'minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape.' Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide. Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3(c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available. You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801, July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to 'metric equivalents' in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term 'metric equivalents' was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. 2. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that 'each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter.....' The retro- reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening. In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off. NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1978OpenClark Brown, Esq., Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss & Gershon, 615 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017; Clark Brown Esq. Richards Watson Dreyfuss & Gershon 615 South Flower Street Los Angeles CA 90017; Dear Mr. Brown: This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1975, in which yo request an interpretation that roof vent covers in recreational vehicles are excluded from the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. Further, you ask our interpretation of the extent to which States may procedurally regulate the conformity of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with Federal safety standards.; We have reviewed the extensive brief you submitted in relation to th applicability of Standard No. 205 to recreational vehicle roof vent covers manufactured by injection molding, and have determined that roof vent covers fall within the purview of the Standard. Nevertheless, we concur in your view that roof vent covers manufactured by the injection molding process are not susceptible to testing under the procedures found in USAS Z26.1. Consequently, we intend to issue in the near future proposed rulemaking which would establish a surrogate testing procedure for this type of roof vent cover. Until this new procedure is adopted, the NHTSA intends to take no action against manufacturers who do not certify that their injection molded roof vent covers meet the requirements of Standard No. 205 which incorporate the requirements of USAS Z26.1.; With respect to State action concerning the conformity of moto vehicles and equipment to motor vehicle safety standards, we are currently reviewing our position in light of a suit brought last month against the State of Pennsylvania. We shall advise you when a conclusion has been reached.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3945OpenAB Tunaverken, Narjeholmevagen 18, S-633 46 Eskilstuna, SWEDEN (Sverige); AB Tunaverken Narjeholmevagen 18 S-633 46 Eskilstuna SWEDEN (Sverige); Dear Sirs: This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking informatio about this agency's requirements applicable to the importation of rims for use on trucks and buses. You were particularly interested in learning the requirements for you to use the DOT symbol on your rims, and asked what technical support the agency would need to make that determination.; All rims for use on trucks and buses which are imported into or sold i the United States customs territory must satisfy Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.120, copy enclosed). This standard specifies two requirements applicable to these rims. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims mounted on a new vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle. That is, the rims size must be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer. This requirement is the sole responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will be mounted on the rim.; The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim b marked by the rim manufacturer with five specified items of information. These are:; >>>(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim' published nominal dimensions,; (2) The rim's size designation and, in the case of multi-piece rims the rim type designation,; (3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the ri manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards,; (4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark or symbol, and; (5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.<<< You stated that you were interested in knowing the requirements for yo to mark your rims with the symbol 'DOT.' The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity test the rims to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the Untied States, the individual rim manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. In the case of rims for use on trucks and buses, Standard No. 120 contains all the applicable requirements. The certification need not be based on actual tests, the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims for use on trucks and buses, no testing is necessary since the standard only sets marking requirements for those rims. Once the manufacturer determines that these rims satisfy those requirements, it marks the symbol 'DOT' on the rims.; If either your company or this agency determines that the imported rim do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would be required to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if the rims fail to comply with Standard No. 120 or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect of noncompliance and must either:; >>>(1) repair the rim so that the defect or noncompliance is removed or; (2) replace the rim with an identical or reasonably equivalent rim tha does not have a defect or noncompliance.<<<; Whichever of these options is chosen, the rim manufacturer must bea the full expense and cannot charge the rim owner for the remedy if the rim was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.; Additionally, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which appl to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This requires either the actual manufacturer of the rims or your company as the importer to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days of the date these wheels arrive in the United States.; The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, *Procedural Rules*. Thi regulation requires that actual manufacturer of these rims to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agency for service of process in this county. Your company may be designated as the agent, if the manufacturer so chooses. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agency must contain the following six items of information:; >>>1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and bindin on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address of your company,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<< This designation must be received by this agency before these wheel and rims are imported into the United States.; If you need further information, or a clarification of any of th information set forth herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4629OpenMr. William L. Dunlap Engineering Manager Philips Industries, Inc. Dexter Axle Division 500 Collins Road Elkhart, IN 46515; Mr. William L. Dunlap Engineering Manager Philips Industries Inc. Dexter Axle Division 500 Collins Road Elkhart IN 46515; "Dear Mr. Dunlap: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.120, copy enclosed). I apologize for the delay in this response. You stated that your company manufactures rims that you sell to other wheel manufacturers. These wheel manufacturers combine your company's rims with center disc sections of their own design to produce finished wheels for use on light trucks and trailers. Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 specifies that each rim shall be marked with certain information. You asked whether your company, as the rim manufacturer, or any subsequent manufacturer that uses your company's rims to produce complete wheels is required to mark the rims in compliance with section S5.2(c). The answer is that the rim manufacturer is responsible for those markings, as explained below. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), the Safety Act) specifies that 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any ... 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 ...' In this case, section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 requires certain markings to appear on all newly manufactured rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. These requirements became effective August 1, 1977. Thus, section 108 of the Safety Act makes it illegal for any person to 'manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any rim manufactured on or after August 1, 1977 designed for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars unless that rim is marked in accordance with section S5.2 of Standard No. 120. Your company would violate this provision of the law if you were to sell light truck rims without the required markings, even if the party to whom you sold such rims was going to use the rims to produce completed wheel assemblies. You suggested in your letter that your company's markings on its rims used by other manufacturers to produce completed wheel assemblies may be misleading or unfair, because your company has no control over the integrity of the completed wheel assemblies. This may represent a misunderstanding of the meaning and purpose of the required rim markings. The markings and certification required on rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars by section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 provide information about only the rims, not the entire wheel assembly. In your letter, you indicated that other wheel manufacturers simply add center discs to your company's rims to produce completed wheel assemblies. In these circumstances, the accuracy of the markings and certification put on a rim by your company as the rim manufacturer would not be affected by another manufacturer simply adding a center disc to that rim to produce a completed wheel assembly. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3416OpenMr. Richard J. Izzo, Vice President, Superior Pontiac, Inc., 5201 Camp Road, Hamburg, NY 14075; Mr. Richard J. Izzo Vice President Superior Pontiac Inc. 5201 Camp Road Hamburg NY 14075; Dear Mr. Izzo: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1981, regarding Safet Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. You ask whether paragraph S4.1.4 of the rule, the 'highlighting' requirement, would be satisfied by placing a sticker bearing the number '55' in the appropriate location on the outside of the glass covering the speedometer. You were previously informed by agency staff that it is necessary to put the sticker inside the glass in order to comply with the standard. In a subsequent phone conversation with Joan Griffin of my office, you stated that you are importing new and used vehicles from Canada.; The information you received earlier is incorrect. As the term is use in paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 127, 'highlighting' refers to any method of placing emphasis on the numeral '55' so that it stands out from the other numerals on the mph scale. The standard does not specify how this is to be accomplished. Thus, it is not necessary for you to place the '55' sticker on the inside of the speedometer glass to comply with the standard. It will suffice if you put the sticker on the outside of the glass. However, we would prefer it if you put the sticker inside the glass, since it then would be more difficult to remove the sticker from the vehicle.; In your conversation with Ms. Griffin, you asked whether the use vehicles that you import from Canada must be brought into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards before they can be brought into the country. Used vehicles that are imported into the United States must be brought into compliance with all Federal safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. However, the vehicles do not have to be brought into compliance *before* they are imported. Nonconforming vehicles may be imported if the importer executes a bond for the value of the vehicles and brings the vehicles into compliance with all applicable standards within 120 days of the date of importation.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any questions.; 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.