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: aiam2622OpenMr. Jerry W. McNeil, Director of Engineering, American Trailers, Inc., Box 26568, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126; Mr. Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering American Trailers Inc. Box 26568 Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73126; Dear Mr McNeil: This responds to your May 25, 1977, letter asking whether two sampl certification labels you submitted comply with the requirements of Part 567, *Certification*, and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The National HIghway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The two labels you submitted do not follow the format required by Part 567 for certification labels. Therefore, they do not appear to comply with the requirements. Your method of stating tire and rim sizes differs from that required in Part 567 and Standard No. 120. For example, you state your tire and rim information as follows: '10-20-f-Tires-7.5 Rims at 75 PSI Cold Dual.' By the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 as they apply to certification labels, this information should read: '10.00-20(f) tires, 20x7.5 rims, at 75 psi cold dual.' Further, the statement after GAWR 'maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below' should be deleted from the certification label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 for your information.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2272OpenMr. R. E. Mindheim, Chief Engineer, Safety & Warranty, White Motor Corporation, P.O. Box 91500, Cleveland, OH 44101; Mr. R. E. Mindheim Chief Engineer Safety & Warranty White Motor Corporation P.O. Box 91500 Cleveland OH 44101; Dear Mr. Mindheim: This responds to White Motor Corporation's March 26, 1976, request fo confirmation that the brake systems of incomplete and complete vehicles to which Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, applies, may be modified by White under provisions of paragraph 567.7 of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, or paragraph 568.5 of 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*.; Paragraph 567.7 provides that a person may alter a previously certifie vehicle prior to the first retail sale, and that the person must state that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with applicable standards if weight ratings or other than readily attachable components have been affected. The person may choose any point from the date of certification to the date alterations were completed as the date of the alterer's statement. The NHTSA would not consider White to be violating its certification responsibilities by alterations of the brake system that you describe, as long as White indicates the modifications under the provisions of paragraph 567.7.; Paragraph 568.5 of Part 568 provides that an intermediate manufacture may modify an incomplete vehicle. Under this paragraph, the intermediate manufacturer must furnish an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document reflecting any changes that should be made in the document because of modifications by the intermediate manufacturer that have affected validity of certain statements. White could utilize this provision to modify the vehicle so long as the addendum of changes is furnished along with the incomplete document.; As a practical result of the changes you describe, the final-stag manufacturer will not, as is normally the case, be able to utilize any date between the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle and the date of final completion as the basis of certification. Therefore, it may be advisable for White to issue a new incomplete vehicle document to assist the final-stage manufacturer in its certification responsibilities. Whenever this is not practical, a notation that the final-stage manufacturer's choice of dates has been limited by White's modification should be made in the addendum to the original document.; This discussion appears to conflict with the definition of intermediat manufacturer that appears in S 568.3. However, the definition is not intended to prevent the modifications you intend to undertake, and an interpretative amendment is being considered to clarify the breadth of the definition.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2788OpenMr. James N. Miller, Hess and Eisenhardt, Co., Blue Ash Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45242; Mr. James N. Miller Hess and Eisenhardt Co. Blue Ash Avenue Cincinnati OH 45242; Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the vehicle classification of a proposed new station wagon having a Cadillac commercial chassis. Specifically, you ask whether the vehicle can be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle on the basis that it has the same chassis that is used on hearses and ambulances, which are multipurpose passenger vehicles.; Based on your description, it is the agency's opinion that the propose new station wagon would be classified as a passenger car. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is described in 49 CFR S 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' The vehicle you described does not meet either of the criteria of that definition. The fact that your vehicle would be built on the same chassis as hearses and ambulances does not affect its classification as a passenger car.; The classification of hearses and ambulances as multipurpose passenge vehicles was based upon specific policy considerations. The unique functions of these vehicles are accommodated by a strengthening of their chassis. Because of the special uses to which they are put, other aspects of the vehicles are designed in a manner which inhibits compliance with several passenger car standards. Given the chassis modifications and the special uses of these vehicles, the NHTSA determined that the policy considerations that led to the placing of vehicles with truck chassis into a category separate from passenger cars apply equally to ambulances and hearses, and that the chassis used for these vehicles may reasonably be considered truck chassis for purposes of classification. These policy considerations are not relevant to the vehicle you describe since it is apparently designed to function primarily as a passenger-carrying vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3033OpenJohn H. Latshaw, Jr., Esq., Messrs. Topkins, Gammin & Krattenmaker, 151 Tremont Street, Boston MA 02111; John H. Latshaw Jr. Esq. Messrs. Topkins Gammin & Krattenmaker 151 Tremont Street Boston MA 02111; Dear Mr. Latshaw: RE: The Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier by Ennova, Inc. This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1979, to John Womack o this office on behalf of your client Ennova, Inc. Ennova wishes to market a 'back rack carrier', and you have asked several questions with respect to its legality under Federal requirements. The photographs which you enclosed show that the carrier structure is attached to both the front and rear bumpers, and that loads may be carried on the top of the vehicle as well as on a shelf directly behind the vehicle's rear bumper.; Your questions and our answers are: '1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned moto vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is preempted?; 2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining t roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?'; An equipment carrier that attaches to a motor vehicle is an item o 'motor vehicle equipment' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), and your client is a 'manufacturer' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover this type of motor vehicle equipment, and, therefore, a State is not preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) (sic) from prescribing its own safety standards for it. If a safety related defect were discovered in the 'Back Rack', Ennova would be responsible for notification and remedy of it, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1411 *et seq*.; '3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumper or fenders which the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any Federal standards?; The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in semipermanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? Is (sic) so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?; 4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rac (T.M.) Carrier present a problem?; 5. The structural supports of the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier obscure th vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?; 8. If the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier as it appears in the photograph were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment.'; Your questions concern our jurisdiction over a vehicle before and afte its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. A dealer has the responsiblity (sic) to deliver to its owner a new vehicle in full compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any 'additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment ... that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.' Paragraph S4.3.1 requires that 'no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its photometric output at any applicable group of test points specified in Figures 1 and 3 [Standard No. 108], or prevent any other lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable 'SAE Standard on Recommended Practice'. Therefore, a dealer could not deliver a new car with the Back Rack installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the car's lamps or reflectors or impairs photometric output. After sale, a dealer (or distributor or manufacturer, but not the vehicle owner) has a responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A) of not 'knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element design installed on ... a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' In the context of Standard No. 108 we have equated a rendering inoperative with impaired effectiveness or impaired photometrics so that the same consideration would apply, a dealer could not install the Back Rack on a used vehicle if it affects compliance with Standard No. 108.; The installation of the Back Rack appears to present some complianc problems. Based upon an informal review and the photographs you submitted, the front part of the carrier may reduce headlamp candlepower output below the required minimum at several test points, as for example, at test points HV, H-3R and 3L and H 9R and 9L on the upper beam, and at test points 1 1/2 D-2R, 1/2 D-1 1/2 R on the low beam.; Looking at the turn signals which are required to have an 8.0 squar inch minimum projected luminous area, the carrier support design may mask them to the extent that the direction of the turn signal might not be clearly understood. The carrier support location may not allow these lamps to provide an unobstructed effective projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, of at least 2 square inches, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This requirement must also be met by the taillamps. Further with respect to the taillamps, with the carrier in place, they may not be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left and/or right, as Standard No. 108 requries (sic).; The design location of the carrier supports may reduce the minimu effective projected luminous area of the stop lamps below the 8 square inch minimum of Standard No. 108.; As for backup lamps, the visibility requirements are complex, those o SAE Standard J593c as modified by S4.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108, but in essence the lamps must be 'readily visible' to use your phrase.; These interpretations are based upon the photographs you supplied, an are meant to be illustrative as there are many different lighting configurations on vehicles, and we do not know that the Back Rack would affect compliance in all instances.; '7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?'; Dimensional requirements of headlights conform to SAE J571d *Dimensional Specifications of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units*, June 1966, parking lights, SAE J 222, *Parking Lamps (Position Lamps)* December 1970, direction lights (turn signals) SAE J588e *Turn Signal Lamps (Rear Position Light)*, August 1970. Copies of the foregoing SAE Standards are attached. In addition, the minima and maxima of lens visibility requirements for parking lamps, turn signal lamps and taillamps are set forth in these SAE Standards. The minimum and maximum photometric requirements of headlights are set forth in SAE J 579a, August 1965 and J 579c, December 1974, as well as the design parameters of rectangular headlamp units SAE J 1132, *Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles* (copies also attached).; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3463OpenMr. Frank J. Goossens, A. Lakin & Sons, Inc., 2044 North Dominick Street, Chicago, IL 60614; Mr. Frank J. Goossens A. Lakin & Sons Inc. 2044 North Dominick Street Chicago IL 60614; Dear Mr. Goossens: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation of a informal opinion you were given in a telephone conversation with Mr. Steve Kratzke of this office. You were concerned about the requirements of Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117) and 49 CFR Part 574 (copies enclosed) regarding the information which must appear on the sidewall of retreaded passenger car tires. Your company would like to use a bead-to-bead retreading process which will remove all of the safety information and the DOT certification and identification number molded on the sidewall of the tire by the original manufacturer.; A retreader of passenger car tires is permitted to remove thes markings, provided the retreader molds into or onto the sidewall of the retreaded tires the information and certification markings required by Standard 117 and Part 574. Section 6.3 of Standard 117 specifies the safety information which must appear on the sidewall of retreaded passenger car tires. This section explicitly gives the retreader a choice of retaining the information molded on the sidewalls by the original manufacturer or of molding the information into or onto the sidewalls during the retreading process. Since the retreading process you intend to use will remove the original labeling, you will have no choice but to mold the required information on the sidewalls during your retreading process.; With respect to the DOT certification label and the origina manufacturer's identification mark, section 5.2.3 of Standard 117 provides that any passenger car tire casing that is to be retreaded must bear the DOT symbol of the original manufacturer as a certification that, at the time of manufacture, the tire met all the requirements of Standard 109. Ordinarily, in cases other than retreading, the removal of this DOT symbol from the passenger car tire by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business is prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section reads in part: '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...an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....' Since the DOT symbol is an element of design on a tire installed in compliance with Standard 109, any knowing removal by the parties listed in this section would be a violation of the section.; The prohibition in Section 108(a)(2)(A) which acts to prevent remova of the new tire certification symbol ceases to have effect when the tire is converted into a retreaded tire. This result is consistent with previous agency interpretations indicating that when a motor vehicle is converted from one type to another, section 108(a)(2)(A) ceases to require the vehicle's continued compliance with standards applicable to the vehicle as originally manufactured but not as converted.; Although both Standard 109 and Standard 117 require that tires b marked with a DOT symbol to certify compliance, the symbol affixed by the manufacturer of the new tire cannot serve also as the symbol to be affixed by the retreader. The retreader is required by section 6.1 of Standard 117 to affix its own DOT symbol to certify that the tire, as retreaded, fully complies with all the requirements of Standard 117. Chapter 49 *Code of Federal Regulations* Part 574.5 specifies the location for the DOT symbol on the sidewall, as well as a manufacturer's code and other information which must be molded onto or into the sidewall immediately following the DOT symbol. The retreader's certification and identification mark serve the same purpose for the retreaded tire that the new tire manufacturer's certification and identification mark serve for the new tire. Thus, the retreader may remove the original DOT symbol and identification from passenger car tire casings during the retreading process.; If you have any further question on this matter, please contact Mr Steve Kratzke of my staff (202-426- 2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3199OpenLieutenant R. C. Dale, Secretary, Commission on Equipment, State of Washington, General Administration Bldg. AX-12, Olympia, WA 98504; Lieutenant R. C. Dale Secretary Commission on Equipment State of Washington General Administration Bldg. AX-12 Olympia WA 98504; Dear Lieutenant Dale: This is in response to your letter of January 24, 1980, asking whethe Federal motor vehicle safety standards prevent the installation of aftermarket trailer hitches in a manner which diminishes the damage resistance performance of the vehicle bumper. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides 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 of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard,...'<<<; However, Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 215, Exterio Protection, applicable to vehicles manufactured between September 1, 1972, and September 1, 1978, permitted the removal of trailer hitches prior to testing for compliance with the regulation (49 CFR S571.215, S6.1.5). Therefore, installation of a trailer hitch on such a vehicle would not be considered to have rendered the vehicle's bumper system inoperative.; Similarly, the Part 581 bumper standard, which replaced FMVSS No. 21 for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1978, provides for removal of trailer hitches prior to testing (49 CFR S581.6(a)(5)). The installation of a trailer hitch which impairs the damage resistance performance of a bumper is then not prohibited by Federal bumper regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4349OpenMr. Alberto Negro, Fiat Research & Development - USA Branch, Parklane Towers West, Suite 1210, Dearborn, MI 48216; Mr. Alberto Negro Fiat Research & Development - USA Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn MI 48216; Dear Mr. Negro: This is in response to Mr. Rossi's request for an interpretation of th Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541), which he asked that I direct to you. That standard requires that certain parts of high-theft carlines, including the engine and transmission, be marked with the vehicle identification number, if the part is an original equipment part, or with the letter 'R' and the manufacturer's trademark, if the part is a replacement part. Mr. Rossi stated that it is occasionally necessary to remove the original equipment engine or transmission from one of these cars and install a replacement engine or transmission in the car. The original equipment engine and/or transmission is then sent to the factory to be repaired and reconditioned. Following such repair, the engine and/or transmission is then put into the replacement parts network.; Mr. Rossi stated his belief that the original equipment part shoul have the original equipment identification removed and a replacement marking put onto the part. He then asked whether Ferrari was required to remove the footprint left by the original equipment identification marking or if that should be left on the part. The answer is that Ferrari and all other reconditioners are *not* permitted to remove from any reconditioned part the original equipment identification marking inscribed or affixed to the part in compliance with Part 541. Further, reconditioners are not required to inscribe or affix any additional markings to parts they have reconditioned. Title II of the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-547, the Theft Act) includes a provision that addresses this question. This section (18. U.S.C. 511) reads as follows:; S511. *Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers* >>>(a) Whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alter an identification number for a motor vehicle, or motor vehicle part, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.; (b)(1) Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a removal obliteration, tampering, or alteration by a person specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection (unless such person knows that the vehicle or part involved is stolen).; (2) The persons referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection are - (A) a motor vehicle scrap processor or a motor vehicle demolisher who complies with applicable State law with respect to such vehicle or part, (B) a person who repairs such vehicle or part, if the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary for the repair, and (C) a person who restores or replaces an identification number for such vehicle or part in accordance with applicable State law.<<<; None of the exceptions set forth in 18 U.S.C. 511(b)(2) would permi Ferrari to routinely remove original equipment markings from reconditioned engines and transmissions. The first exception is not applicable, since Ferrari is clearly not a motor vehicle scrap processor or demolisher. The second exception would be applicable only in rare instances, since it is not usually necessary to remove the original equipment identification marking in order to recondition engines or transmissions. The third exception was explained as follows in the House Report on the Theft Act (H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 24 (1984)): 'The exemption also applies to persons acting under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation or State law to restore or replace such markings.' For the policy reasons discussed below, we will not give reconditioners authority to routinely remove original equipment identification markings from engines and transmissions. Assuming Ferrari does not have authority under applicable State law to remove such markings, the third exception does not apply to Ferrari when it is reconditioning engines and transmissions.; If reconditioners of engines and transmissions were allowed t routinely remove the original equipment identification markings, the law enforcement purposes of the Theft Act would be seriously undermined. In response to some comments received on the proposed Part 541, a new S541.6(b) was added to the final rule. This section expressly prohibits covered major parts from being marked as both original equipment and replacement parts. The preamble to the final rule explained the reasons for prohibiting such 'dual markings' as follows:; >>>Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stole original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. Once the original equipment identification (the VIN) had been obliterated from those stolen parts, a legitimate replacement part marking would remain. Assuming that the obliteration of the VIN were performed reasonably proficiently, repair shops and investigators would have little reason to suspect that this part was anything other than a properly identified replacement part. 50 FR 43178, October 24, 1985.<<<; These same law enforcement concerns would arise if Ferrari were t remove the VIN markings from its reconditioned engines and transmissions. If those parts were marked as both original equipment and replacement parts, the problems associated with dual markings would arise. If, on the other hand, Ferrari were to try to obliterate the footprint from the original equipment, law enforcement officials would have no means of distinguishing engines Ferrari had reconditioned from stolen engines on which thieves had obliterated the original equipment marking and added a counterfeit replacement marking. In either case, it would cause confusion and uncertainty for law enforcement officials if Ferrari and the large number of other reconditioners were legitimately and routinely to remove the original equipment identification from reconditioned parts and add a replacement part marking to those parts.; Indeed, such action by reconditioners would serve to defeat the purpos of the Theft Act, which was to 'decrease the ease with which stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced.' If reconditioners routinely removed the original equipment markings from the engines and transmissions they reconditioned, car thieves could also remove those original equipment markings with impunity. If the thieves were ever questioned by law enforcement officials about the obliterated original equipment marking, they could respond that the marking must have been obliterated during reconditioning. If obliterated original equipment markings on parts do not provide law enforcement officials with evidence of illegal activity, there would seem to be no reason to require the original equipment markings on the parts.; Further, a requirement that all persons reconditioning engines an transmissions obliterate the original equipment marking and add a replacement part marking would impose significant additional costs and burdens on those persons. This would be inconsistent with the Theft Act's stated purpose of minimizing regulation of the aftermarket motor vehicle industry.; All of these potential problems can be avoided if reconditioners simpl leave the original equipment marking on the parts after reconditioning. When those markings are left in place by reconditioners, thieves cannot claim that an engine or transmission that has a 'footprint' in the area where the original equipment identification is placed is just a reconditioned part. Instead, the 'footprint' would alert law enforcement officials to the likelihood that the original equipment marking had been unlawfully removed from the part. Further, no burdens are imposed on reconditioners if they must leave the original equipment markings in place and are not required to add any markings of their own. Therefore, we conclude that the Theft Act and Part 541 require that businesses that recondition any major parts required to be marked pursuant to Part 541 leave those markings in place on the reconditioned parts. Part 541 does not require reconditioners to add any further identification markings to these parts.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3176OpenMr. K. W. Schang, Director, Vehicle Safety Programs, American Motors Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. K. W. Schang Director Vehicle Safety Programs American Motors Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Schang: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of th warning system requirements for seat belts in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The buckles of driver lap belts in all AMC vehicles and most Jeep vehicles are equipped with switches that prevent the audible belt use warning system from operating when the driver turns the ignition on after having fastened his or her lap belt. You ask whether the standard allows removal of the switch and associated wiring. The effect of this step, which would result in a savings of about $1.50 per vehicle, would be that the warning would operate regardless of whether the driver has fastened his or her lap belt. You also ask that your letter be considered a petition for rulemaking if this removal is not permissible.; Paragraph S7.3 of the standard requires a seat belt warning system tha activates a 4 to 8-second warning light when the vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the 'on' or 'start' position (condition 'a'), and a 4 to 8-second audible signal when condition 'a' exists and the driver's lap belt is not fastened (condition 'b'). Under your proposal, the audible signal would be activated when both conditions exist. However, it would also be activated when condition 'a' alone exists.; The functioning of the audible signal when condition 'a' only exists i not permissible under the standard. The rulemaking notices which led to adoption of the current requirement stated that the agency's intent was that the audible signal operate if the driver's lap belt is not in use. The agency expressed that same intent in the standard by specifying the light to function when condition 'a' existed and the audible signal when both conditions 'a' and 'b' existed. To interpret the standard to permit the signal to operate when condition 'a' only existed would be to render purposeless the specification of condition 'b'.; Further, the agency denies your petition to amend FMVSS 208 to permi operation of the audible signal when condition 'a' only exists. A greater limitation was placed on the operation of the audible warning signal in consideration of the irritation factor associated with the signal but not with the light. To provide a reminder and incentive for safety belt use and to avoid subjecting the conscientious belt user to having to hear an audible reminder to do something that he or she has already done, the agency specified that the signal would not function if the driver's safety belt were fastened.; In light of studies concerning the value of a properly designed bel use warning system in improving the rate of belt use, the agency is contemplating including a proposal to amend the FMVSS 208 warning requirements when it issues its forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking on seat belt comfort and convenience. We would welcome your views on the proposal following its announcement.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4719OpenMr. Mehid Rowghani Dallas European Parts Distributors 1505 Wallace Drive Carrollton, TX 75006; Mr. Mehid Rowghani Dallas European Parts Distributors 1505 Wallace Drive Carrollton TX 75006; Dear Mr. Rowghani: This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1990 to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether 'importation and sale of European doors (without reinforcement bars) is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation.' Your question appears premised upon the fact that many European passenger cars achieve compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Door Strength by being equipped with doors incorporating reinforcement bars. However, this standard applies only to new vehicles, and does not extend to replacement parts for such vehicles. Thus, if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced, and that door incorporated a reinforcing bar, there is no requirement that the replacement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214. In short, the importation and sale of a replacement door that does not incorporate a reinforcing bar does not violate any of the statutes, standards, or other regulations administered by this agency. If the replacement door is intended for use on a passenger car line that is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard that this agency administers, however, you should be aware that it must nevertheless be marked with the registered trademark of the manufacturer of the door, or unique identifier if there is no registered trademark, and the letter 'R'. I enclose a copy of the standard for your information, as this requirement is a relatively new one, and may not be clearly understood. This marking must be on the door before the door is imported into the United States. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure (Part 541); |
|
ID: aiam3526OpenMr. William E. Lawler, Specifications Manager, Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc., 120 West Main Street, Carmel, IN 46032; Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing Inc. 120 West Main Street Carmel IN 46032; Dear Mr. Lawler: This responds to your recent letter asking whether the requirements o paragraph S7.1.1.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, apply to motor homes and school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. It is your assumption that only those vehicle applications which must have seat belt assemblies meeting S7.1 generally are required to have emergency locking retractors on lap belts.; Your interpretation is incorrect. It is true that belt assemblie installed pursuant to S4.2.1.2 are not required to comply with paragraph S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, since that paragraph states that it is applicable to lap belts installed pursuant to S4.1.1 and S4.1.2. However, paragraph S7.1.1.3 is not so limited. It states that:; >>>A lap belt installed at any front outboard designated seatin position in a vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1982, shall meet the requirements of this section by means of an emergency-locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209.<<<; This means that S7.1.1.3 applies to all lap belts installed in an vehicle in compliance with the standard, including belts installed under S4.2.1.2. Therefore, both motor homes and school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less would have to comply with the requirement.; 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.