NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam5059OpenMr. Ray Wyatt 5207 N. 33rd St. Phoenix, AZ 85018; Mr. Ray Wyatt 5207 N. 33rd St. Phoenix AZ 85018; Dear Mr. Wyatt: This letter responds to your inquiry regarding th conversion of race cars into cars for use on the public roads. I apologize for the delay in this response. As I understand the question, based upon your letter and subsequent telephone conversations with David Elias of my staff, you intend to convert a race car designed for use solely on a race track into a vehicle that can be used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations for you. NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) defines 'motor vehicle' as one 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways... .' 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The Safety Act requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its new motor vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1403) and prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). However, these requirements apply only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). After that first purchase, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops are thus free to modify vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle. However, these entities are prohibited from performing any modification that would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. In addition, unlike the situation with new vehicles, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops that modify used motor vehicles are not required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. Hence, if these race cars had ever been certified as motor vehicles complying with the safety standards, your conversions would be subject only to the 'render inoperative' prohibition of the Safety Act. Your situation appears to be different, however, in that you wish to place a race car, which had never been certified, on the public roads. Race cars are not 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act, so no party has ever certified that these vehicles meet the applicable safety standards. This means that the first introduction into interstate commerce or sale of these converted race cars as 'motor vehicles' for the purposes of the Safety Act would be by you after you perform the conversion. Accordingly, you would be legally responsible for certifying that the converted race cars comply with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with the regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. As a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle under the provisions of the Safety Act, you would also be subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. This means that if either you or the agency determined that a non-compliance with a safety standard or safety related defect exists in your converted vehicles, you, as the manufacturer, would be required to notify purchasers of the determination and remedy the problem without charge to the purchaser. I have enclosed for your convenience an information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a brief overview of our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations. You may also want to contact the State of Arizona to learn whether there are any state laws or regulations that would affect the conversion of a racing car to a passenger automobile, and its sale and registration in the state, as well as the insurance ramifications of such a conversion and sale. If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact David Elias of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam1388OpenMr. J. E. Young, Supervisor, Safety Recall, Truck Division, International Harvester, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; Mr. J. E. Young Supervisor Safety Recall Truck Division International Harvester 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60611; Dear Mr. Young: This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1974, and an earlie letter received from Mr. J. K. Smith dated December 14, 1973, forwarding to us for approval revised draft defect notification letters in International campaigns IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081), IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078), IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125), IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) -- two drafts, IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207), IH 73521 (NHTSA 730208). You ask if the revised letters may be sent First Class mail as opposed to Certified mail.; We appreciate your efforts to comply with both the letter and spirit o the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577), but we find that your revised owner notification letters do not comply with the regulations. We deal with each notification separately below.; *IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081)*. The third paragraph of your letter appear to represent an attempt to comply with both S 577.4(c) requiring a description of the defect, and S 577.4(d), requiring an evaluation of the risk to traffic safety related to the defect. We find that this letter fails to adequately describe the defect as the phrase, 'unwanted vehicle speed' is vague, and consequently meaningless. Any speed in excess of the driver's input would be 'unwanted.' We believe to adequately describe the defect, the amount of unwanted speed should be quantified, at least in general terms. If, as quite likely, this may differ from vehicle to vehicle, we believe the letter should contain an indication of the most adverse case. In evaluating the risk you state that the condition can result in vehicle crash if not corrected by the driver. However, you do not indicate how the driver can correct the problem, and the facts as you present them, a jammed throttle linkage in a moving vehicle, seem to preclude any possibility that the driver can 'correct' the condition apart from somehow stopping the vehicle. Without a clear explanation, we believe that the reference to the possibility of correction is misleading. We do not, therefore, consider your statement to be responsive to the requirement of S 577.4(d)(1)(ii).; Section 577.4(e)(1)(ii) requires an estimate by the manufacturer of th day by which dealers will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect. Your letter states that most dealers have parts, but if they do not, that parts are 'usually' available at parts depots within 72 hours. We question the latter part of your statement, particularly as it appears in each notification letter you submit. The estimate must be a specific day, based on the facts of each particular campaign. The requirement assumes, because notification campaigns usually involve other than normal service items and apply to large numbers of vehicles, that manufacturers will take special steps to ensure the availability of parts. Your statement would be appropriate only if repairs can be accomplished using parts normally stocked by dealers, and your company is taking no special steps to supply parts to dealers (or parts depots). Even if this is the case, we believe your letter should include that explanation for your customers.; *IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078)*. We do not find this notification letter t comply with Part 577. In response to your question, the use of the words, 'may exist' in the first sentence of the second paragraph is not permitted under S 577.4(b), which calls for a precise statement. Your next sentence, indicating that the defect may not exist in each vehicle, is permitted under the regulations. Your description of the defect as some loss of 'stopping ability' fails to comply with S 577.4(c) for the same reason as the phrase 'unwanted speed' in campaign IH73505 (sic). The loss of braking power should be quantified, as the worst possible case if it varies from vehicle to vehicle. Our comments made with reference to IH 73505 regarding compliance with S 577.4(e)(1)(ii) are equally applicable here.; *IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125)*. This notification letter does not conform t Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.; *IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) 2 proposals*. We do not find the notificatio letter equating the defect with the violation of Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations to contain, for that reason, an appropriate description of the defect (S 577.4(c)) and we do not discuss that draft further. With respect to the the (sic) other draft, we do not find the description of the defect to be sufficient under S 577.4(c). Specifically, there is no explanation why the gas cap is incorrect, and how it can cause an explosion. In addition, the letter does not comply with S 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided in our evaluation of campaign notice IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081).; *IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207)*. This notification letter does not conform t Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.; *IH 73521 (NHTSA 730206)*. This letter does not conform for reason similar to those provided for campaign IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078) and IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126). Specifically, to conform to S 577.4(c), the degree of additional brake pedal effort should be quantified, and an explanation should be provided on why the use of 'single wrap' brake hose can result in a loss of vacuum assist. Similarly, the letter does not conform to S 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided for campaign IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081).; The regulations require notification letters which conform to Part 57 to be sent Certified mail. Consequently, the revised letters must also be sent Certified mail.; Sincerely yours, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5032OpenMr. Tim Flagstad 220 West 14th Street National City, CA 9l950; Mr. Tim Flagstad 220 West 14th Street National City CA 9l950; "Dear Mr. Flagstad: This responds to your FAX of June 20, 1992, wit respect to importation of a 1981 Kenworth truck from Canada. This vehicle bears VIN M911042. You state that you imported the truck on February 12, 1990, through 'a licensed broker and all necessary declarations and papers were properly submitted.' You have enclosed a letter from Kenworth of Canada dated March 6, 1991, stating that this truck was 'in compliance with the U.S. federal laws . . . at the time of delivery', which was August 31, 1981. Although you experienced no difficulty in titling the truck in California, the purchaser of your truck, resident in another state, is 'having a problem registering it' because the VIN has only seven characters. Joan Moniz, the daughter of the purchaser talked with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 23, 24, and 25, 1992, and explained that the problem is that the State of Hawaii is requiring registration as a 1975 vehicle. According to her copy of the HS-7 importation form under which the truck entered the United States, Box 2 was checked, the declaration that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears a certification label to that effect. However, according to her, the truck bears no U.S. certification label, and her records indicate that the date of importation and clearance was January 31, 1990. We are furnishing Ms Moniz a copy of this response. You ask whether paragraph S2 of Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, exempts this vehicle from the 17-character requirement of paragraph S4.2, 'and make it legal in the United States with a seven digit number.' Paragraph S2 of Standard No. 115 applies to trucks and other motor vehicles, and states in pertinent part that 'Vehicles imported into the United States under Sec. 591.5(f), other than by a corporation which was responsible for the assembly of that vehicle, or a subsidiary of such a corporation are exempt from the requirements of S4.2 . . . .' Section 591.5(f) corresponds to Box 3 on the HS-7 importation form, the declaration that the vehicle to be imported was not manufactured in conformity with the safety standards but will be brought into conformity with them. However, S2 makes it clear that conformity does not require the nonconforming vehicle to meet the requirement of Standard No. 115 that VINs be composed of 17 characters. Indeed, S4.9(a) specifically requires passenger cars imported under part 591 to retain their original VINs. We note that the truck in question was imported under section 591.5(b) (Box 2), as a conforming vehicle, and, in a legal sense, is not eligible for the exclusion provided for vehicles imported under section 591.5(f). However, importation under section 591.5(b) was erroneous, since the truck bore no certification of compliance. Furthermore, in spite of the letter from Kenworth of Canada stating that the truck was 'in compliance with U.S. federal laws' at the time of its delivery on August 31, 1981, it manifestly failed to comply with Standard No. 115 which, as of September 1, 1980, required trucks to have 17-character VINs. Ms Moniz believes that is also lacks an air brake system as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. Lacking a certification label, the truck should have been imported under section 591.5(f), which would have excused it from compliance with the 17-digit requirement. I shall shortly address a possible resolution of this dilemma. You have also asked whether this truck should have been imported through a 'registered importer'. You state that Taylor Vinson told you in a recent telephone conversation that 'as U.S. Customs had accepted the vehicle's compliance to U.S. Safety Standards and had not required a bond, a registered importer was not required.' This opinion was based on the assumption that the letter from Kenworth of Canada attesting to the truck's conformance with U.S. safety standards had accompanied the vehicle's importation, and was accepted by Customs (for the record, NHTSA currently permits importation of Canadian vehicles without bond or reference to a registered importer provided that a conformance letter from the manufacturer has been submitted for the agency's approval before importation). However, we see that our assumption was incorrect, Kenworth's letter is dated March 1991, and could not have accompanied the truck when it was imported in 1990. If a Canadian-manufactured vehicle is not accompanied by such a letter (or a permanently affixed label certifying compliance to U.S. standards), the vehicle must be entered under section 591.5(f) (Box 3) by a registered importer or by an importer who has a contract with a registered importer who will assure compliance with all the standards. Therefore, the truck in question was subject to the requirement that it be imported by a registered importer, or by a person who had a contract with a registered importer. Furthermore, the truck could not have been admitted into the United States unless the Administrator of this agency had determined that it was capable of conformance to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the Administrator had made no such determination. However, the effective date of section 591.5(f), the registered importer requirement, and the vehicle capability requirement was January 31, 1990, the date that the truck appears to have been imported into the United States. Both Customs personnel and brokers should have been aware of the new requirements that became effective on that date. However, as of that date (and for some months thereafter), no registered importers had been appointed, and no vehicle capability determinations had been made. Thus, even if the truck had been imported pursuant to section 591.5(f), this could not have been accomplished until much later in 1990 when the agency made a blanket capability determination concerning Canadian vehicles. Because of the passage of time and the apparent present location of the truck in Hawaii, the agency has no interest in requiring re-entry of this vehicle at this date to conform with regulations that went into effect the date that it was imported. As for the problem of the truck's registration, it is curious that Hawaii would wish to register as a l975 model-year truck a vehicle that was manufactured in 1981. Perhaps the State simply wishes to treat it as a vehicle that conforms to standards in effect in 1975, and does so by assigning it a model year reflecting a time before Standard No. 115 required a 17- character VIN, and before the effective date of Standard No. 121. In any event, Hawaii has recognized that S2 of Standard No. 115 permits the importation of a truck to which the 17-character VIN requirement of S4.2 does not apply. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Ms Joan Moniz 45623 Halekou Road Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744"; |
|
ID: aiam4076OpenMr. Ralph Trimarchi, President, Trimco International Sales, P.O. Box 322, Flushing NY 11358; Mr. Ralph Trimarchi President Trimco International Sales P.O. Box 322 Flushing NY 11358; Dear Mr. Trimarchi: This responds to your letter seeking information about the Federa requirements applicable to automotive wheels that are to be imported into the United States. There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to wheel rims, one for rims for passenger cars and the other for rims for other types of motor vehicles. It is not clear whether your reference to 'automotive wheels' is limited to passenger car wheels, so I have included a discussion of the requirements for both types of wheels.; None of our standards set requirements for the parts of the whee assembly other than the rim.; The two potentially applicable standards are No. 110, *Tire selectio and rims - passenger cars*, and No. 120, *Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars*. I have enclosed copies of both standards, along with Standards No. 109 and 119, which are applicable to tires and are referenced in the rim standards. For those passenger car rims you wish to import, section S4.4 of Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional specifications shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire & Rim Association or the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle travelling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.; For those rims you import for use on vehicles other than passenge cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of any vehicle manufacturer that uses your rims as original equipment, since only it would know what size tires will be installed on the vehicle. The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim be 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 multipiece rims, th 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 o symbol, and; 5. The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.<<< You stated that you wanted to learn if the rims were subject to an tests by the Department of Transportation. 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. 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, a manufacturer as defined below is not expected to test if the rims have the necessary markings and if the rim size is listed in one of the standardization organization publications.; You should also be aware of the fact that section 102(5) of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) treats both the actual manufacturer *and* the importer of a wheel as its manufacturer. If either the manufacturer or this agency determines that the imported rims do not comply with the above- described safety standards or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer 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 an applicable safety standards 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.; In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacture satisfied an obligation imposed on a 'manufacturer' by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be completely satisfied by either party.; 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 the manufacturer,; 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 contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4614OpenThe Honorable Henry J. Nowak House of Representatives Washington, DC 205l5; The Honorable Henry J. Nowak House of Representatives Washington DC 205l5; "Dear Mr. Nowak: Thank you for your letter on behalf of you constituents, Ms. Eugenia M. Pierakos and Mr. James L. Pierakos. Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos are president and sales manager, respectively, of a firm which is the western New York state dealer for Jaeger Industries, Inc., a Canadian manufacturer of curbside recycling equipment. They stated that Jaeger has had difficulty obtaining data/regulations that apply to a type of vehicle manufactured by Jaeger, and specifically asked about regulations related to the use of chain steering for dual steering applications, brakes, and throttle. According to the Pierakos' letter, Jaeger has spoken with two officials of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and no one has provided that company with any definitive answers. Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos requested assistance in obtaining the necessary information. I note that we do recall speaking with a representative of Jaeger by telephone. We were not able to provide definitive answers to that company by telephone, since it is our policy not to provide oral interpretations of our safety standards. This policy is for the benefit of the person requesting the interpretation and the agency. It ensures that there are no misunderstandings as to the question or response, and that there is an opportunity for appropriate review of the interpretation within the agency. The policy also enables us to place all interpretations in the docket, so that the public has access to each interpretation. While we advised Jaeger that they could submit their questions in writing, our records do not show any written request from that company. I will now provide what information I can in response to the Pierakos' request. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. Enclosed is a pamphlet which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Among other things, the pamphlet explains where to obtain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. As indicated above, Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos specifically asked about regulations concerning chain steering for dual steering applications, brakes, and throttle, that would apply to the vehicle manufactured by Jaeger. Information included with the letter indicates that the vehicle in question is an air-braked truck with a gross vehicle weight rating over 30,000 pounds. NHTSA has not issued any standards for 'chain steering.' Moreover, no standard prohibits a manufacturer from providing dual steering. With respect to brakes, Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems, establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and Standard No. l06, Brake Hoses, specifies labeling and performance requirements for brake hose, brake hose assemblies and brake hose end fittings. Standard No. l24, Accelerator Control Systems, sets forth requirements for a vehicle's throttle. Also, Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays, includes requirements related to the steering wheel, brakes, and throttle. If the Pierakos, or Jaeger, have any specific requests for interpretation of these or other applicable safety standards, we would be happy to respond to such requests. I note that one of the enclosures included with Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos' letter is a drawing from Jaeger which includes the following statement: 'This document contains proprietary information and it shall not be used or reproduced or its contents disclosed in part or whole without prior written authorization.' Since the drawing could become subject to a request for release under the Freedom of Information Act, I am returning to you the copy of the drawing included with your letter. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam5439OpenMr. John Collins Senior Vice President, Government Affairs American Trucking Associations 2200 Mill Road Alexandria, VA 22314-4677; Mr. John Collins Senior Vice President Government Affairs American Trucking Associations 2200 Mill Road Alexandria VA 22314-4677; Dear Mr. Collins: This responds to your letter about a recent amendmen to the supply line retention requirements in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You requested an interpretation of the test procedure set forth in S5.8.2. That provision states, in relevant part that, A trailer shall meet the above supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pressurized to 100 psi, and the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi. Specifically, you believe that this provision means that (1) the test rig remains connected to the shop air, as shown in Figure 1, for the duration of the test, (2) the shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test, and (3) the pressure in the test rig's 1000 cubic inch reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test. I will address each of these suggested interpretations below. The basic issue raised by your questions is whether the supply line retention test is conducted with air flowing from the test rig (simulating the flow of air from a tractor), or with the supply of air cut off. It is our opinion that this test is conducted with the air flowing from the test rig. As you suggested in your letter, this result is implied by the language of S5.8.2. That section states that a trailer must meet the supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig, and with the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi. There would be no reason to set the regulator at 100 psi if air was not flowing from the test rig. We therefore agree with the first of your three suggested interpretations, that the test rig remains connected to the shop air for the duration of the test. We similarly agree with the second of your suggested interpretations, that the shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test. S5.8.2 does not specify that this valve be shut, and such shutting would be inconsistent with conducting the test with air flowing from the test rig. Your third suggested interpretation is that the pressure in the test rig's 1000 cubic inch reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test. We note that no special efforts are made to maintain this pressure at 100 psi. As indicated above, S5.8.2 specifies that the reservoir of the test rig is initially set at 100 psi, the pressure could vary during the test. However, as indicated above, 100 psi air pressure would continue to flow through the regulator during the test in the direction of the reservoir. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4731OpenMr. Theo Bose Webasto Heater, Inc. 1458 E. Lincoln Madison Hts., MI 48071; Mr. Theo Bose Webasto Heater Inc. 1458 E. Lincoln Madison Hts. MI 48071; "Dear Mr. Bose: You wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA asking about requirements for 'diesel fuel burning coolant heaters and air heaters' that you import for installation in trucks, buses and school buses. According to the installation instructions for the heaters, they are connected either to the fuel tank of the vehicle or to a separate fuel tank. The FHWA forwarded us your letter with regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for this standard. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSS's applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.) The Safety Act defines the term 'manufacturer' as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' (102(5), emphasis added.) As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for compliance with the Safety Act and applicable regulations. There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the heating unit you describe. Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) applies only to completed new motor vehicles, and not to components of fuel systems. (The standard applies to trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, and to school buses.) However, Federal law may affect the installation of your product, depending on who installs the heating unit and when the work is performed. If the heating unit were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's. If the heater were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed school bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. These certification requirements apply to the vehicle manufacturer and alterer regardless of whether the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system. Of course, if the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system, the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 should be carefully scrutinized. (I have enclosed a copy of our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) for your information.) If the heater were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not be subject to the certification requirements outlined above. Instead, the installer would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. If the modification of the vehicle entailed connecting the heater to the vehicle's fuel system, compliance with Standard No. 301 would of course be especially germane to whether the modification had rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the heater is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3496OpenMr. Rickey L. Newmayer, Mr. Jerry A. Corbett, Newbuilt Enterprises, 540 California Avenue, Sand City, California 93955; Mr. Rickey L. Newmayer Mr. Jerry A. Corbett Newbuilt Enterprises 540 California Avenue Sand City California 93955; Dear Messrs. Newmayer and Corbett: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1981, regarding Safety Standar No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of our response. You request permission to install a 'Ballistic Cube 2000' in 500 motor vehicles over a two-year period for experimental purposes. The 'Ballistic Cube 2000' is a protective cubicle made of Lexgard that is installed inside a vehicle. Lexgard, a bullet-resistant material, does not comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 205. You urge us to grant your request on the basis that the data generated form such an experiment would be relevant to a rulemaking proceeding initiated by General Electric. (General Electric has petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard No. 205 to permit the use of protective bullet- resistant shields in vehicles. The agency granted this petition on November 28, 1980.); Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which applies to all glazin materials used in passenger cars, buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. All automotive glazing materials, including those used in the Ballistic Cube 2000, must conform to the standard's requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) provides in part that no person shall sell or manufacture for sale any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect on the date of the item's manufacture. Thus, if you were to manufacture for sale or sell a Ballistic Cube 2000 made of Lexgard or any other glazing material that does not comply with Standard No. 205, you would be in violation of section 108(a)(1)(A). (Section 108(b)(5) establishes that section 108(a)(1)(A) does not apply when the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is intended solely for export and is so labeled.) Section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation of Section 108.; We believe that installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in moto vehicles could possibly generate test data that could be valuable to the agency in the previously mentioned rulemaking proceeding. Unfortunately, however, NHTSA does not have the legal authority to grant you permission to make such an installation. NHTSA does not have statutory authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer from the requirements of Section 108(a)(1)(A) as it relates to motor vehicle equipment.; Section 123 of the Act authorizes the exemption of motor vehicles fro the safety standards. However, it does not authorize the exemption of motor vehicle equipment form equipment standards. As noted above, Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard applicable to glazing. Consequently, no exemption can be granted under section 123 that would excuse manufacturing, offering for sale or selling noncomplying glazing as part of the vehicles you wish to modify and sell, since you would also be considered an equipment manufacturer.; While the agency cannot grant you an exemption, it is pursing th request made by G.E. regarding Lexgard. The agency anticipates issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking before the end of this year. If a final rule permitting the use of Lexgard were issued, you could commence manufacturing and installation of the Ballistic Cubes upon the effective date of that rule.; Even if that rule is issued, there may be other standards which must b considered. As we understand your materials, the installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in motor vehicles may affect the compliance of those vehicles with FMVSS No. 103, *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems*, and FMVSS No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. If you were to install a Ballistic Cube in a new vehicle, i.e., one that had not yet been purchased for purposes other than resale, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) if the vehicle no longer complied with one of those standards. Of course, since Standard Nos. 103 and 201 are vehicle standards, you could apply for an exemption from those standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would prohibit you from installing the Ballistic Cube in a used vehicle if such installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Standard 103 and 201.; The agency cannot definitively state whether installation of your cub in a motor vehicle would effect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard Nos. 201 or 103. NHTSA does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination The agency is willing to offer an opinion on whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with particular rule. Such an opinion is not binding on the agency or on the manufacturer. However, the information you have provided in your letter does not give us a sufficient basis on which to form an opinion. It would probably be difficult for the agency to offer an opinion concerning your compliance with Standard 203 regardless of the information you supplied, since that standard involves a dynamic performance test.; Apart from the requirements imposed by section 108(a)(1)(A) regardin compliance with safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have general responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under section 151 *et seq*., such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.; I am sorry we are unable to accommodate you in this matter. However since it is beyond our legal authority to do so, we have no choice but to make the decision set forth in this letter. Please contact this office if you have any questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4511OpenMr. Joseph J. O'Brien Chairman of the Board ITD Industries, Inc. 2544 Terminal Drive South St. Petersburg, FL 33712; Mr. Joseph J. O'Brien Chairman of the Board ITD Industries Inc. 2544 Terminal Drive South St. Petersburg FL 33712; "Dear Mr. O'Brien: This responds to your letters of January 29, 1988 and March 15, 1988, requesting a determination concerning the installation of one of your products in used vehicles. You enclosed a sample of a clear plastic film with a scratch-resistant coating on it and a pressure sensitive adhesive used to attach the plastic film to the glass. You asked whether it is 'legal to retrofit existing cars of windshields with a 4 mil clear film with a scratch-resistant coating that meets the anti-lacerative windshield spec as far as scratch resistance..' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process in which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued Standard 205, Glazing Material (49 CFR 571.205), which establishes performance criteria for the types of glazing that may be used in various types and locations of motor vehicles. Your clear plastic film is not itself glazing material, so it does not have to comply with the requirements of Standard 205. Even though Standard 205 does not apply specifically to your product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. Clear plastic film would be considered motor vehicle equipment, under section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Thus, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would be subject to the requirements in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. You also should be aware of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Standard 205 specifies 14 performance elements with which glazing might not comply if your clear plastic film were installed. If the application of your film to windshields in used vehicles would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with these provisions of Standard 205, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that applied your film would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each application, as specified in section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398). If the windshield continues to comply with the requirements of Standard 205 after application of this film, it may legally be installed by any business. Because of this potential liability, a repair shop or other business that installs glazing films may ask your company to provide some assurance that the motor vehicle windshield, as modified by the installation of your film, continues to meet the performance requirements set forth in Standard 205. Please note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Federal law permits individual vehicle owners to install any materials on the glazing in their vehicles, regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 205. However, the individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from installing certain films on their own vehicles. I appreciate your interest in safety and your desire to ensure that your company complies with all Federal requirements. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4942OpenRichard Gray, Secretary Sports Car Club of New Zealand, Inc. P.O. Box 6282 Wellesley St, Auckland 1 New Zealand; Richard Gray Secretary Sports Car Club of New Zealand Inc. P.O. Box 6282 Wellesley St Auckland 1 New Zealand; "Dear Mr. Gray: This responds to your letter asking for informatio about whether certain motor vehicles manufactured in the United States and imported into New Zealand comply with the requirements of the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (MOT) is introducing new vehicle safety standards in an effort to align New Zealand's standards with those of the United States, Europe, Australia, and the United Kingdom. To that end, you stated that the MOT is requiring importers to ensure that the vehicles they import meet the relevant safety standards of these countries. You further indicated that you are responsible for providing proof to the MOT that certain privately imported, 'low volume vehicles' (built in numbers less than 200 per year) comply with the requirements of their country of origin, or that the country has a special exemption for low volume vehicles. Accordingly, you asked for clarification of Standards No. 205 and 208, and other Federal regulations, as they would be applied to these vehicles. I am pleased to be able to provide the following information. In the case of the United States, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue a number of safety standards. The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufactured or sold in, or imported into, the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United 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 and is covered by a certification issued under 114... Generally speaking, then, to the extent that the vehicles you import are manufactured and sold in the United States, those vehicles would have to comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 208, regardless of the number of such vehicles produced by the manufacturer. The fact that your letter is seeking proof that a motor vehicle actually complies with applicable safety standards may, however, indicate a misunderstanding of the certification process in the United States. The process of certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, many European nations require manufacturers to deliver motor vehicles to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the vehicle, the government approves the vehicle and assigns an approval code. In countries using such a pre-sale approval certification process, the governmental entity would have specific information about the actual compliance of vehicles with applicable standards. In the United States, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to do any pre-sale testing or approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Consequently, NHTSA does not have any 'proof of actual compliance' of vehicles. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards by permanently affixing a label to the driver's side door hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Among other things, that label must contain the statement: 'This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.' Under the self-certification process used in the United States, NHTSA does conduct periodic enforcement tests on vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by their manufacturer to ensure that the products do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. In order for this agency to determine whether any of the vehicles imported into New Zealand were subject to an enforcement test or a defects investigation by this agency, you would have to provide us with specific descriptive information about each of the subject vehicles, including the date of manufacture. It should be a simple exercise for you to check the area around the driver's side door of the vehicles in question to see if the manufacturer affixed a U.S. certification label, stating that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the vehicle has such a label, there would not seem to be any reason for questioning the manufacturer's representation. On the other hand, if there is no such label, neither the vehicle's manufacturer nor anyone else has suggested that the vehicle conforms with the safety standards of the United States. Finally, you asked whether the United States has any Federal regulations regarding the installation of registration plates on the front of vehicles. The answer is no, vehicle registration is a matter addressed by each of the individual States, not by the Federal government. Thus, the requirements for display of registration plates on the front of vehicles differ from State to State. If you are interested in further information on the requirements of the individual States, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, U.S.A. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.