NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.

An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.

Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
Some combination of the above, or other, factors.

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.

Single word search

Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.

Multiple word search

Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.

Connector word search

Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.

Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.

Phrase in double quotes

Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.

Conjunctive search

Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.

Wildcard

Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).

Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).

Not

Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”

Complex searches

You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.

Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).

Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 6951 - 6960 of 16490

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam5156 Open Mr. Donald L. Anglin 706 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903; Mr. Donald L. Anglin 706 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville VA 22903; "Dear Mr. Anglin: This responds to your letter in which you aske whether removing the self- adjusters on a motor vehicle's drum brakes constitutes a violation of the 'anti-tampering' provisions of several Federal laws, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this agency's regulations. You will need to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for an interpretation of the Clean Air Act. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act') requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the standards issued by NHTSA are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. NHTSA recently amended these standards to require vehicles to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. (57 FR 47793, October 20, 1992) This rule takes effect on October 20, 1993 for vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes and on October 20, 1994 for vehicles equipped with air brakes. Until these effective dates, a vehicle is not required to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. You specifically asked about the agency's 'anti-tampering' provisions. While the agency has no provision called this, the Safety Act does include a provision known as the 'rendering inoperative' provision which is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. For vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the new requirements for automatic adjusters, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses will be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) from rendering the devices inoperative. For vehicles manufactured before that time, such an entity should ensure that removal of the adjusters does not otherwise render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with a safety standard. 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: aiam2785 Open Mr. Donald L. Fowler, Ullman, Fowler & Jeffries, Inc., 2231 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205; Mr. Donald L. Fowler Ullman Fowler & Jeffries Inc. 2231 Devine Street Columbia SC 29205; Dear Mr. Fowler: This responds to your March 6, 1978, letter asking about the complianc responsibilities of a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a body on a motor vehicle chassis. In the situation you describe, the chassis would have been tested for compliance with the standards by the chassis manufacturer and the body would have been tested by the body manufacturer. You ask whether the final assembler would be required to crash test the vehicle as assembled.; The chassis manufacturer has responsibilities for compliance wit Federal safety standards that are outlined in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Motor Vehicles Manufactured In Two Or More Stages, of our regulations. The chassis manufacturer must include with its chassis an incomplete vehicle document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the compliance of the chassis with Federal safety standards. Although not required by our regulations, body manufacturers often provide documents addressing the compliance of their vehicle bodies with applicable safety standards. If a body that complies with Federal standards is mounted in accordance with the instructions of the incomplete vehicle document, the final-stage manufacturer can ordinarily assume that the completed vehicle complies with the safety standards. Based upon this assumption, it can certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards.; By following the instructions of the incomplete vehicle manufacture and relying upon the statements of the body manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer would be considered to have exercised due care in ensuring that the vehicle complies. However, if the final-stage manufacturer does not follow the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or in some way makes a major modification that would affect the compliance of the vehicle, it might become necessary for it to undertake some further testing to ensure continued compliance. The amount of further testing, in these instances, would depend upon the extent of modification of the vehicle body or chassis.; For your information, our safety standards and regulations are locate in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 501 et seq. I am enclosing a sheet which details the applicability of Federal standards to various vehicles.; If after reading this letter, you still have questions that require meeting, contact Roger Tilton of my staff.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2786 Open Mr. Donald L. Fowler, Ullman, Fowler & Jeffries, Inc., 2231 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205; Mr. Donald L. Fowler Ullman Fowler & Jeffries Inc. 2231 Devine Street Columbia SC 29205; Dear Mr. Fowler: This responds to your March 6, 1978, letter asking about the complianc responsibilities of a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a body on a motor vehicle chassis. In the situation you describe, the chassis would have been tested for compliance with the standards by the chassis manufacturer and the body would have been tested by the body manufacturer. You ask whether the final assembler would be required to crash test the vehicle as assembled.; The chassis manufacturer has responsibilities for compliance wit Federal safety standards that are outlined in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Motor Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, of our regulations. The chassis manufacturer must include with its chassis an incomplete vehicle document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the compliance of the chassis with Federal safety standards. Although not required by our regulations, body manufacturers often provide documents addressing the compliance of their vehicle bodies with applicable safety standards. If a body that complies with Federal standards is mounted in accordance with the instructions of the incomplete vehicle document, the final-stage manufacturer can ordinarily assume that the completed vehicle complies with the safety standards. Based upon this assumption, it can certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards.; By following the instructions of the incomplete vehicle manufacture and relying upon the statements of the body manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer would be considered to have exercised due care in ensuring that the vehicle complies. However, if the final-stage manufacturer does not follow the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or in some way makes a major modification that would affect the compliance of the vehicle, it might become necessary for it to undertake some further testing to ensure continued compliance. The amount of further testing, in these instances, would depend upon the extend of modification of the vehicle body or chassis.; For your information, our safety standards and regulations are locate in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 501 et seq. I am enclosing a sheet which details the applicability of Federal standards to various vehicles.; If after reading this letter, you still have questions that require meeting, contact Roger Tilton of my staff.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2787 Open Mr. Donald L. Fowler, Ullman, Fowler & Jeffries, Inc., 2231 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205; Mr. Donald L. Fowler Ullman Fowler & Jeffries Inc. 2231 Devine Street Columbia SC 29205; Dear Mr. Fowler: This responds to your March 6, 1978, letter asking about the complianc responsibilities of a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a body on a motor vehicle chassis. In the situation you describe, the chassis would have been tested for compliance with the standards by the chassis manufacturer and the body would have been tested by the body manufacturer. You ask whether the final assembler would be required to crash test the vehicle as assembled.; The chassis manufacturer has responsibilities for compliance wit Federal safety standards that are outlined in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Motor Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, of our regulations. The chassis manufacturer must include with its chassis an incomplete vehicle document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the compliance of the chassis with Federal safety standards. Although not required by our regulations, body manufacturers often provide documents addressing the compliance of their vehicle bodies with applicable safety standards. If a body that complies with Federal standards is mounted in accordance with the instructions of the incomplete vehicle document, the final-stage manufacturer can ordinarily assume that the completed vehicle complies with the safety standards. Based upon this assumption, it can certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards.; By following the instructions of the incomplete vehicle manufacture and relying upon the statements of the body manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer would be considered to have exercised due care in ensuring that the vehicle complies. However, if the final-stage manufacturer does not follow the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or in some way makes a major modification that would affect the compliance of the vehicle, it might become necessary for it to undertake some further testing to ensure continued compliance. The amount of further testing, in these instances, would depend upon the extend of modification of the vehicle body or chassis.; For your information, our safety standards and regulations are locate in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 501 et seq. I am enclosing a sheet which details the applicability of Federal standards to various vehicles.; If after reading this letter, you still have questions that require meeting, contact Roger Tilton of my staff.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4970 Open Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein Senior Counsel PACCAR Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue, WA 98004; Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein Senior Counsel PACCAR Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue WA 98004; "Dear Mr. Brownstein: This responds to your letter, requesting that th agency clarify a provision in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. (49 CFR 571.120) Specifically, you asked whether under section S5.1.3, a vehicle manufacturer could, if requested by the purchaser, install retreaded tires procured by the manufacturer on a new vehicle. You stated that allowing the vehicle manufacture to buy retreaded tires would be more efficient and would help the truck owner to avoid having to make a separate purchase. I welcome this opportunity to respond to your request for an interpretation. Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 states: In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol. For the vehicle manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new truck, bus, or trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that five conditions must be satisfied. These are: (1) the purchaser must request such a retreaded or used tire, (2) the vehicle must be equipped with the retreaded or used tire at the vehicle's place of manufacture, (3) the retreaded or used tire to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser, (4) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle, and (5) used tires equipped on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 (and contain the DOT certification symbol). Your letter indicates that in buying the retreaded tires at the purchaser's request, PACCAR's actions would comply with the first condition (and presumably the second condition). However, since PACCAR and not the vehicle purchaser would supply the tire, your requested action clearly would not comply with the third condition which requires the retreaded or used tire to be owned by the purchaser. This condition permits a purchaser to order a new vehicle without any tires and install any tire it may choose. It is not clear from your letter whether the fourth condition would be satisfied. The fifth condition is not applicable to retreaded truck tires, since such tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on their sidewalls. Based on the above, we conclude that having a vehicle manufacturer supply a retreaded or used tire for a new vehicle would not comply with S5.1.3. We disagree with your view that the purpose of section S5.1.3 is to allow the purchaser to choose whether the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure it has knowledge of this fact. As discussed in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the purpose of the provision is to accommodate a practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to the vehicle manufacturer for installation on new vehicles they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been taken off vehicles no longer in service. (49 FR 20822, 20823, May 17, 1984). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam2356 Open Mr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activites (sic) Staff, General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48093; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activites (sic) Staff General Motors Corporation Warren MI 48093; Dear Mr. Martin: It has come to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration that General Motors corporation is planning to include in its 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document the following statement with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity:; >>>Conformity with FMVSS 301 is not substantially determined by th design of this incomplete vehicle and General Motors makes no representation as to conformity with this Standard.<<<; The use of this statement would not comply with 49 CFR Part 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.; A copy of the March 8, 1976, letter from Mr. W.J. Owen of the Cadilla Motor Car Division to Mr. R.B. Kurre of the Wayne Corporation is attached for your reference. That letter was included in the petition of Wayne's Miller-Meteor Division for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 as applied to the ambulances and funeral coaches that Wayne manufactures using Cadillac commercial chassis.; I understand that these chassis are delivered to Wayne with the fue system components already installed, that Wayne removes certain components in order to mount the body, and that those components are reinstalled after the mounting of the body.; The incomplete vehicle document is required by S568.4(a)(7) to includ a--; >>>[l]isting by number of each standard...followed in each case by on of the following three types of statements, as applicable:; (i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to th standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle. ...; (ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture unde which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard. ...; (iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is no substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.<<<; There is a factual limitation on use of the third statement. It may no be used for standards conformity to which is substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle. Where the basic fuel system components, including fuel tank and lines and filler pipe, are included in the incomplete vehicle, compliance of the completed vehicle with Standard No. 301-75 is substantially determined by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer. Therefore, General Motors is required to include a statement of the first or second type with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the incomplete vehicle documents accompanying Cadillac commercial chassis that are manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, and designed for completion into multipurpose passenger vehicles. Such chassis that are manufactured before that date are not required by Part 568 to include any statement concerning Standard No. 301-75, because there are no fuel system integrity requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles until that date.; The above discussion also applies to any other commercial chassi manufactured by General Motors for sale as incomplete vehicles.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2355 Open Mr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activities Staff, General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48093; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation Warren MI 48093; Dear Mr. Martin: It has come to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration that General Motors Corporation is planning to include in its 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document the following statement with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity:; >>>Conformity with FMVSS 301 is not substantially determined by th design of this incomplete vehicle and General Motors makes no representation as to conformity with this Standard.; The use of this statement would not comply with 49 CFR Part 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.; A copy of the March 8, 1976, letter from Mr. W.J. Owen of the Cadilla Motor Car Division to Mr. R.B. Kurre of the Wayne Corporation is attached for your reference. That letter was included in the petition of Wayne's Miller-Meteor Division for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 as applied to ambulances and funeral coaches that Wayne manufactures using Cadillac commercial chassis.; I understand that these chassis are delivered to Wayne with the fue system components already installed, that Wayne removes certain components in order to mount the body and that those components are reinstalled after the mounting of the body.; The incomplete vehicle document is required by S568.4(a)(7) to includ a--; >>>[l]isting (sic) by number of each standard...followed in each cas by one of the following types of statement, as applicable:; (i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to th standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle. ...; (ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture unde which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard. ...; (iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is no substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.<<<; There is a factual limitation on use of the third statement. It may no be used for standards conformity to which is substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle. Where the basic fuel system components, including fuel tank and lines and filler pipe, are included in the incomplete vehicles, compliance of the completed vehicle with Standard No. 301-75 is substantially determined by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer. Therefore, General Motors is required to include a statement of the first or second type with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the incomplete vehicle documents accompanying Cadillac commercial chassis that are manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, and designed for completion into multipurpose passenger vehicles. Such chassis that are manufactured before that date are not required by Part 568 to include any statement concerning Standard No. 301-75, because there are no fuel system integrity requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles until that date.; The above discussion also applies to any other commercial chassi manufactured by General Motors for sale as incomplete vehicles.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4397 Open Mr. Peter McIntosh, President, Stardor International Pty Ltd., Suite A803 The Towers, 1111 Crandon Blvd., Key Biscayne, FL 33149; Mr. Peter McIntosh President Stardor International Pty Ltd. Suite A803 The Towers 1111 Crandon Blvd. Key Biscayne FL 33149; Dear Mr. McIntosh: This is in reply to your recent undated letter to Taylor Vinson of thi office, requesting 'approval' of your Rear Ender stop lamp. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not permit this agency to assure a manufacturer that its lighting equipment complies with all applicable requirements or to 'approve' any lighting equipment. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its lighting equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this statutory requirement, NHTSA cannot 'approve' your stop lamp or offer assurances that the stop lamp complies with all applicable safety standards. We can, however, state whether your lighting equipment appears to comply with the safety standards, based solely on the information set forth in your letter.; Your product is intended to be used as a center highmounted stop lamp One of the claims for the lamp made in the product literature that you enclosed is that 'Unlike many other rear brake lens' this one 'features a wider vision reflector....'; Paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. Because your lamp appears to incorporate a reflector with the lens it would not be acceptable as original equipment for passenger cars, or as replacement equipment for cars manufactured with a center highmounted lamp (generally those produced since September 1, 1985). You may be interested to know that we have expressed views on designs similar to concept to yours, but that did not appear to combine the lamp with another lamp or reflective device. I have enclosed an example of such an opinion letter.; There are no Federal restrictions applicable to use of your product o vehicles other than passenger cars, or on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, that were not equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp as original equipment. The acceptability of the device for these vehicles is determined by the laws of the States in which these vehicles would be registered and operated.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4841 Open William F. Canever, Esq. Staff Attorney Office of General Counsel Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, MI 48l2l; William F. Canever Esq. Staff Attorney Office of General Counsel Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48l2l; "Dear Mr. Canever: This responds to your letter concerning Ford's pla to allocate MY l986 light truck credits to cover MY l985 and MY l989 shortfalls. For each of those model years, manufacturers have the option of complying with separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards or a combined standard. Ford elected to comply with the separate standards for MY l985 and the combined standard for MY l986 and MY l989. The MY l986 credits are applied in the plan on a prorated basis to MY l985. In response to your letter, we have reviewed Ford's credit allocation plan in light of 49 CFR 535.4(e). That section provides, among other things, that '(c)redits may not be applied between classes of light trucks, except as determined by the Administrator to account for changes made in the definitions of classes between model years.' Since Ford's plan involves applying credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, we have considered whether the plan represents a cross-class application of credits that is prohibited by 535.4(e). As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited. In your letter, you suggest that the regulatory scheme creates two methods of complying with light truck CAFE standards and not three classes of light trucks. You also state that the term 'class' is nowhere applied to the combined light truck fleet. You conclude that there is no cross-class application of credits. We do not agree with your suggested analysis. Section 535.3(a)(4) states that the term 'class of light trucks' is used in accordance with the determinations in Part 533 of this chapter. Section 535.4(b) then indicates that credits are earned 'whenever the average fuel economy for a class of light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer exceeds an applicable average fuel economy standard established in Part 533 of this chapter.' The term 'class' in Part 535 thus refers to each possible grouping of light trucks that is averaged together for determining compliance with CAFE standards. Looking at Part 533, there are, in fact, six classes of light trucks for the model years in question: (l) Combined captive import, (2) Combined other, (3) 2-wheel drive captive import, (4) 2-wheel drive other, (5) 4-wheel drive captive import, and (6) 4-wheel drive other. While we do not agree with your suggested analysis, we believe that there is ambiguity with respect to how 535.4(e) applies to the factual sitation at issue. First, Ford's plan involves overlapping classes. Thus, while there is a degree of cross-class application of credits, it is limited. Second, NHTSA has never addressed in rulemaking the issue of whether manufacturers should, in effect, forfeit credits as a result of choosing particular compliance options for particular years. This situation is analagous in some respects to the issue of whether forfeiture of credits should occur where NHTSA changes the definitions of classes between model years. In that situation, the agency decided, based on its understanding of statutory intent, against forfeiture. Third, in a letter dated April 26, l988, NHTSA approved a Ford carryback plan for MY l985 light trucks which set forth Ford's proposed allocation methodology. While the agency did not expressly address that methodology in the letter approving the plan, Ford could have assumed that the agency considered the proposed allocation to be permissible. Given the ambiguity surrounding this issue, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate to decide the issue, for now, in favor of the manufacturer. The agency believes that this is a type of ambiguity that should be resolved, for the future, by rulemaking. However, the issue will become moot, at least for the time being, since, beginning with the MY l992 light truck CAFE standards, NHTSA decided not to set optional separate two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive standards. Should the agency decide to issue optional CAFE standards at some future time, it will address this issue in rulemaking. For now, NHTSA will treat situations where a manufacturer changes compliance options between model years in the same manner as situations where the agency changes the definitions of classes between model years. In both types of situations, NHTSA will follow the policy first announced in a November 8, 1979 notice of interpretation (44 FR 64943), and reaffirmed in a December 18, 1980 Federal Register notice (45 FR 83233), of attempting to assure that credits are applied to offset shortfalls on the same types of vehicles which generated the credits. Ford's plan to apply, on a prorated basis, credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, is consistent with the examples set forth in the November l979 and December l980 notices. Ford's plan then to apply remaining MY l986 credits to its MY l989 shortfall, incurred against the MY l989 combined standard, does not involve any cross-class application of credits. I therefore conclude that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam3445 Open Mr. Antonia Cano, Sales Representative, P.O. Box 904, Buckingham, PA 18912; Mr. Antonia Cano Sales Representative P.O. Box 904 Buckingham PA 18912; Dear Mr. Cano: This responds to your question raised during a meeting with Carl Clark Vernon Bloom, Harry Thompson and Edward Glancy, whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device called 'Hyperblock.' The device works by preventing release of the brakes. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicles braking system.; By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals o vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean '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.' Emphasis added. ; The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft device that work by preventing release of the brakes.; However, since installation of Hyperblock requires cutting into vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.; If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of Hyperblock, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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. . .<<<; You indicated at the aforementioned meeting that installation o Hyperblock does not affect a vehicle's braking performance. You also indicated that Hyperblock maintains the integrity of a vehicle's split system. In addition to requirements in those areas, Standard No. 105 establishes brake system integrity requirements, requiring that a braking system be able to withstand a series of spike stops. You may wish to consider testing Hyperblock as to whether it affects a vehicle's compliance with the spike stop test requirements, if you have not done so already. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard.; While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particula device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.; Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether b the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections (sic) 151 et seq. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.; 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.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam5156 Open Mr. Donald L. Anglin 706 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903; Mr. Donald L. Anglin 706 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville VA 22903; "Dear Mr. Anglin: This responds to your letter in which you aske whether removing the self- adjusters on a motor vehicle's drum brakes constitutes a violation of the 'anti-tampering' provisions of several Federal laws, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this agency's regulations. You will need to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for an interpretation of the Clean Air Act. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act') requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the standards issued by NHTSA are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. NHTSA recently amended these standards to require vehicles to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. (57 FR 47793, October 20, 1992) This rule takes effect on October 20, 1993 for vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes and on October 20, 1994 for vehicles equipped with air brakes. Until these effective dates, a vehicle is not required to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. You specifically asked about the agency's 'anti-tampering' provisions. While the agency has no provision called this, the Safety Act does include a provision known as the 'rendering inoperative' provision which is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. For vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the new requirements for automatic adjusters, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses will be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) from rendering the devices inoperative. For vehicles manufactured before that time, such an entity should ensure that removal of the adjusters does not otherwise render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with a safety standard. 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: aiam2785 Open Mr. Donald L. Fowler, Ullman, Fowler & Jeffries, Inc., 2231 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205; Mr. Donald L. Fowler Ullman Fowler & Jeffries Inc. 2231 Devine Street Columbia SC 29205; Dear Mr. Fowler: This responds to your March 6, 1978, letter asking about the complianc responsibilities of a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a body on a motor vehicle chassis. In the situation you describe, the chassis would have been tested for compliance with the standards by the chassis manufacturer and the body would have been tested by the body manufacturer. You ask whether the final assembler would be required to crash test the vehicle as assembled.; The chassis manufacturer has responsibilities for compliance wit Federal safety standards that are outlined in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Motor Vehicles Manufactured In Two Or More Stages, of our regulations. The chassis manufacturer must include with its chassis an incomplete vehicle document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the compliance of the chassis with Federal safety standards. Although not required by our regulations, body manufacturers often provide documents addressing the compliance of their vehicle bodies with applicable safety standards. If a body that complies with Federal standards is mounted in accordance with the instructions of the incomplete vehicle document, the final-stage manufacturer can ordinarily assume that the completed vehicle complies with the safety standards. Based upon this assumption, it can certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards.; By following the instructions of the incomplete vehicle manufacture and relying upon the statements of the body manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer would be considered to have exercised due care in ensuring that the vehicle complies. However, if the final-stage manufacturer does not follow the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or in some way makes a major modification that would affect the compliance of the vehicle, it might become necessary for it to undertake some further testing to ensure continued compliance. The amount of further testing, in these instances, would depend upon the extent of modification of the vehicle body or chassis.; For your information, our safety standards and regulations are locate in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 501 et seq. I am enclosing a sheet which details the applicability of Federal standards to various vehicles.; If after reading this letter, you still have questions that require meeting, contact Roger Tilton of my staff.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2786 Open Mr. Donald L. Fowler, Ullman, Fowler & Jeffries, Inc., 2231 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205; Mr. Donald L. Fowler Ullman Fowler & Jeffries Inc. 2231 Devine Street Columbia SC 29205; Dear Mr. Fowler: This responds to your March 6, 1978, letter asking about the complianc responsibilities of a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a body on a motor vehicle chassis. In the situation you describe, the chassis would have been tested for compliance with the standards by the chassis manufacturer and the body would have been tested by the body manufacturer. You ask whether the final assembler would be required to crash test the vehicle as assembled.; The chassis manufacturer has responsibilities for compliance wit Federal safety standards that are outlined in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Motor Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, of our regulations. The chassis manufacturer must include with its chassis an incomplete vehicle document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the compliance of the chassis with Federal safety standards. Although not required by our regulations, body manufacturers often provide documents addressing the compliance of their vehicle bodies with applicable safety standards. If a body that complies with Federal standards is mounted in accordance with the instructions of the incomplete vehicle document, the final-stage manufacturer can ordinarily assume that the completed vehicle complies with the safety standards. Based upon this assumption, it can certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards.; By following the instructions of the incomplete vehicle manufacture and relying upon the statements of the body manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer would be considered to have exercised due care in ensuring that the vehicle complies. However, if the final-stage manufacturer does not follow the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or in some way makes a major modification that would affect the compliance of the vehicle, it might become necessary for it to undertake some further testing to ensure continued compliance. The amount of further testing, in these instances, would depend upon the extend of modification of the vehicle body or chassis.; For your information, our safety standards and regulations are locate in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 501 et seq. I am enclosing a sheet which details the applicability of Federal standards to various vehicles.; If after reading this letter, you still have questions that require meeting, contact Roger Tilton of my staff.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2787 Open Mr. Donald L. Fowler, Ullman, Fowler & Jeffries, Inc., 2231 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205; Mr. Donald L. Fowler Ullman Fowler & Jeffries Inc. 2231 Devine Street Columbia SC 29205; Dear Mr. Fowler: This responds to your March 6, 1978, letter asking about the complianc responsibilities of a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a body on a motor vehicle chassis. In the situation you describe, the chassis would have been tested for compliance with the standards by the chassis manufacturer and the body would have been tested by the body manufacturer. You ask whether the final assembler would be required to crash test the vehicle as assembled.; The chassis manufacturer has responsibilities for compliance wit Federal safety standards that are outlined in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Motor Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, of our regulations. The chassis manufacturer must include with its chassis an incomplete vehicle document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the compliance of the chassis with Federal safety standards. Although not required by our regulations, body manufacturers often provide documents addressing the compliance of their vehicle bodies with applicable safety standards. If a body that complies with Federal standards is mounted in accordance with the instructions of the incomplete vehicle document, the final-stage manufacturer can ordinarily assume that the completed vehicle complies with the safety standards. Based upon this assumption, it can certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards.; By following the instructions of the incomplete vehicle manufacture and relying upon the statements of the body manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer would be considered to have exercised due care in ensuring that the vehicle complies. However, if the final-stage manufacturer does not follow the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or in some way makes a major modification that would affect the compliance of the vehicle, it might become necessary for it to undertake some further testing to ensure continued compliance. The amount of further testing, in these instances, would depend upon the extend of modification of the vehicle body or chassis.; For your information, our safety standards and regulations are locate in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 501 et seq. I am enclosing a sheet which details the applicability of Federal standards to various vehicles.; If after reading this letter, you still have questions that require meeting, contact Roger Tilton of my staff.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4970 Open Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein Senior Counsel PACCAR Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue, WA 98004; Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein Senior Counsel PACCAR Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue WA 98004; "Dear Mr. Brownstein: This responds to your letter, requesting that th agency clarify a provision in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. (49 CFR 571.120) Specifically, you asked whether under section S5.1.3, a vehicle manufacturer could, if requested by the purchaser, install retreaded tires procured by the manufacturer on a new vehicle. You stated that allowing the vehicle manufacture to buy retreaded tires would be more efficient and would help the truck owner to avoid having to make a separate purchase. I welcome this opportunity to respond to your request for an interpretation. Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 states: In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol. For the vehicle manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new truck, bus, or trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that five conditions must be satisfied. These are: (1) the purchaser must request such a retreaded or used tire, (2) the vehicle must be equipped with the retreaded or used tire at the vehicle's place of manufacture, (3) the retreaded or used tire to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser, (4) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle, and (5) used tires equipped on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 (and contain the DOT certification symbol). Your letter indicates that in buying the retreaded tires at the purchaser's request, PACCAR's actions would comply with the first condition (and presumably the second condition). However, since PACCAR and not the vehicle purchaser would supply the tire, your requested action clearly would not comply with the third condition which requires the retreaded or used tire to be owned by the purchaser. This condition permits a purchaser to order a new vehicle without any tires and install any tire it may choose. It is not clear from your letter whether the fourth condition would be satisfied. The fifth condition is not applicable to retreaded truck tires, since such tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on their sidewalls. Based on the above, we conclude that having a vehicle manufacturer supply a retreaded or used tire for a new vehicle would not comply with S5.1.3. We disagree with your view that the purpose of section S5.1.3 is to allow the purchaser to choose whether the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure it has knowledge of this fact. As discussed in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the purpose of the provision is to accommodate a practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to the vehicle manufacturer for installation on new vehicles they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been taken off vehicles no longer in service. (49 FR 20822, 20823, May 17, 1984). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam2356 Open Mr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activites (sic) Staff, General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48093; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activites (sic) Staff General Motors Corporation Warren MI 48093; Dear Mr. Martin: It has come to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration that General Motors corporation is planning to include in its 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document the following statement with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity:; >>>Conformity with FMVSS 301 is not substantially determined by th design of this incomplete vehicle and General Motors makes no representation as to conformity with this Standard.<<<; The use of this statement would not comply with 49 CFR Part 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.; A copy of the March 8, 1976, letter from Mr. W.J. Owen of the Cadilla Motor Car Division to Mr. R.B. Kurre of the Wayne Corporation is attached for your reference. That letter was included in the petition of Wayne's Miller-Meteor Division for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 as applied to the ambulances and funeral coaches that Wayne manufactures using Cadillac commercial chassis.; I understand that these chassis are delivered to Wayne with the fue system components already installed, that Wayne removes certain components in order to mount the body, and that those components are reinstalled after the mounting of the body.; The incomplete vehicle document is required by S568.4(a)(7) to includ a--; >>>[l]isting by number of each standard...followed in each case by on of the following three types of statements, as applicable:; (i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to th standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle. ...; (ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture unde which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard. ...; (iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is no substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.<<<; There is a factual limitation on use of the third statement. It may no be used for standards conformity to which is substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle. Where the basic fuel system components, including fuel tank and lines and filler pipe, are included in the incomplete vehicle, compliance of the completed vehicle with Standard No. 301-75 is substantially determined by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer. Therefore, General Motors is required to include a statement of the first or second type with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the incomplete vehicle documents accompanying Cadillac commercial chassis that are manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, and designed for completion into multipurpose passenger vehicles. Such chassis that are manufactured before that date are not required by Part 568 to include any statement concerning Standard No. 301-75, because there are no fuel system integrity requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles until that date.; The above discussion also applies to any other commercial chassi manufactured by General Motors for sale as incomplete vehicles.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2355 Open Mr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activities Staff, General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48093; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation Warren MI 48093; Dear Mr. Martin: It has come to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration that General Motors Corporation is planning to include in its 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document the following statement with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity:; >>>Conformity with FMVSS 301 is not substantially determined by th design of this incomplete vehicle and General Motors makes no representation as to conformity with this Standard.; The use of this statement would not comply with 49 CFR Part 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.; A copy of the March 8, 1976, letter from Mr. W.J. Owen of the Cadilla Motor Car Division to Mr. R.B. Kurre of the Wayne Corporation is attached for your reference. That letter was included in the petition of Wayne's Miller-Meteor Division for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 as applied to ambulances and funeral coaches that Wayne manufactures using Cadillac commercial chassis.; I understand that these chassis are delivered to Wayne with the fue system components already installed, that Wayne removes certain components in order to mount the body and that those components are reinstalled after the mounting of the body.; The incomplete vehicle document is required by S568.4(a)(7) to includ a--; >>>[l]isting (sic) by number of each standard...followed in each cas by one of the following types of statement, as applicable:; (i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to th standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle. ...; (ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture unde which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard. ...; (iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is no substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.<<<; There is a factual limitation on use of the third statement. It may no be used for standards conformity to which is substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle. Where the basic fuel system components, including fuel tank and lines and filler pipe, are included in the incomplete vehicles, compliance of the completed vehicle with Standard No. 301-75 is substantially determined by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer. Therefore, General Motors is required to include a statement of the first or second type with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the incomplete vehicle documents accompanying Cadillac commercial chassis that are manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, and designed for completion into multipurpose passenger vehicles. Such chassis that are manufactured before that date are not required by Part 568 to include any statement concerning Standard No. 301-75, because there are no fuel system integrity requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles until that date.; The above discussion also applies to any other commercial chassi manufactured by General Motors for sale as incomplete vehicles.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4397 Open Mr. Peter McIntosh, President, Stardor International Pty Ltd., Suite A803 The Towers, 1111 Crandon Blvd., Key Biscayne, FL 33149; Mr. Peter McIntosh President Stardor International Pty Ltd. Suite A803 The Towers 1111 Crandon Blvd. Key Biscayne FL 33149; Dear Mr. McIntosh: This is in reply to your recent undated letter to Taylor Vinson of thi office, requesting 'approval' of your Rear Ender stop lamp. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not permit this agency to assure a manufacturer that its lighting equipment complies with all applicable requirements or to 'approve' any lighting equipment. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its lighting equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this statutory requirement, NHTSA cannot 'approve' your stop lamp or offer assurances that the stop lamp complies with all applicable safety standards. We can, however, state whether your lighting equipment appears to comply with the safety standards, based solely on the information set forth in your letter.; Your product is intended to be used as a center highmounted stop lamp One of the claims for the lamp made in the product literature that you enclosed is that 'Unlike many other rear brake lens' this one 'features a wider vision reflector....'; Paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. Because your lamp appears to incorporate a reflector with the lens it would not be acceptable as original equipment for passenger cars, or as replacement equipment for cars manufactured with a center highmounted lamp (generally those produced since September 1, 1985). You may be interested to know that we have expressed views on designs similar to concept to yours, but that did not appear to combine the lamp with another lamp or reflective device. I have enclosed an example of such an opinion letter.; There are no Federal restrictions applicable to use of your product o vehicles other than passenger cars, or on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, that were not equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp as original equipment. The acceptability of the device for these vehicles is determined by the laws of the States in which these vehicles would be registered and operated.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4841 Open William F. Canever, Esq. Staff Attorney Office of General Counsel Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, MI 48l2l; William F. Canever Esq. Staff Attorney Office of General Counsel Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48l2l; "Dear Mr. Canever: This responds to your letter concerning Ford's pla to allocate MY l986 light truck credits to cover MY l985 and MY l989 shortfalls. For each of those model years, manufacturers have the option of complying with separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards or a combined standard. Ford elected to comply with the separate standards for MY l985 and the combined standard for MY l986 and MY l989. The MY l986 credits are applied in the plan on a prorated basis to MY l985. In response to your letter, we have reviewed Ford's credit allocation plan in light of 49 CFR 535.4(e). That section provides, among other things, that '(c)redits may not be applied between classes of light trucks, except as determined by the Administrator to account for changes made in the definitions of classes between model years.' Since Ford's plan involves applying credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, we have considered whether the plan represents a cross-class application of credits that is prohibited by 535.4(e). As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited. In your letter, you suggest that the regulatory scheme creates two methods of complying with light truck CAFE standards and not three classes of light trucks. You also state that the term 'class' is nowhere applied to the combined light truck fleet. You conclude that there is no cross-class application of credits. We do not agree with your suggested analysis. Section 535.3(a)(4) states that the term 'class of light trucks' is used in accordance with the determinations in Part 533 of this chapter. Section 535.4(b) then indicates that credits are earned 'whenever the average fuel economy for a class of light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer exceeds an applicable average fuel economy standard established in Part 533 of this chapter.' The term 'class' in Part 535 thus refers to each possible grouping of light trucks that is averaged together for determining compliance with CAFE standards. Looking at Part 533, there are, in fact, six classes of light trucks for the model years in question: (l) Combined captive import, (2) Combined other, (3) 2-wheel drive captive import, (4) 2-wheel drive other, (5) 4-wheel drive captive import, and (6) 4-wheel drive other. While we do not agree with your suggested analysis, we believe that there is ambiguity with respect to how 535.4(e) applies to the factual sitation at issue. First, Ford's plan involves overlapping classes. Thus, while there is a degree of cross-class application of credits, it is limited. Second, NHTSA has never addressed in rulemaking the issue of whether manufacturers should, in effect, forfeit credits as a result of choosing particular compliance options for particular years. This situation is analagous in some respects to the issue of whether forfeiture of credits should occur where NHTSA changes the definitions of classes between model years. In that situation, the agency decided, based on its understanding of statutory intent, against forfeiture. Third, in a letter dated April 26, l988, NHTSA approved a Ford carryback plan for MY l985 light trucks which set forth Ford's proposed allocation methodology. While the agency did not expressly address that methodology in the letter approving the plan, Ford could have assumed that the agency considered the proposed allocation to be permissible. Given the ambiguity surrounding this issue, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate to decide the issue, for now, in favor of the manufacturer. The agency believes that this is a type of ambiguity that should be resolved, for the future, by rulemaking. However, the issue will become moot, at least for the time being, since, beginning with the MY l992 light truck CAFE standards, NHTSA decided not to set optional separate two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive standards. Should the agency decide to issue optional CAFE standards at some future time, it will address this issue in rulemaking. For now, NHTSA will treat situations where a manufacturer changes compliance options between model years in the same manner as situations where the agency changes the definitions of classes between model years. In both types of situations, NHTSA will follow the policy first announced in a November 8, 1979 notice of interpretation (44 FR 64943), and reaffirmed in a December 18, 1980 Federal Register notice (45 FR 83233), of attempting to assure that credits are applied to offset shortfalls on the same types of vehicles which generated the credits. Ford's plan to apply, on a prorated basis, credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, is consistent with the examples set forth in the November l979 and December l980 notices. Ford's plan then to apply remaining MY l986 credits to its MY l989 shortfall, incurred against the MY l989 combined standard, does not involve any cross-class application of credits. I therefore conclude that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam3445 Open Mr. Antonia Cano, Sales Representative, P.O. Box 904, Buckingham, PA 18912; Mr. Antonia Cano Sales Representative P.O. Box 904 Buckingham PA 18912; Dear Mr. Cano: This responds to your question raised during a meeting with Carl Clark Vernon Bloom, Harry Thompson and Edward Glancy, whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device called 'Hyperblock.' The device works by preventing release of the brakes. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicles braking system.; By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals o vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean '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.' Emphasis added. ; The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft device that work by preventing release of the brakes.; However, since installation of Hyperblock requires cutting into vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.; If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of Hyperblock, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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. . .<<<; You indicated at the aforementioned meeting that installation o Hyperblock does not affect a vehicle's braking performance. You also indicated that Hyperblock maintains the integrity of a vehicle's split system. In addition to requirements in those areas, Standard No. 105 establishes brake system integrity requirements, requiring that a braking system be able to withstand a series of spike stops. You may wish to consider testing Hyperblock as to whether it affects a vehicle's compliance with the spike stop test requirements, if you have not done so already. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard.; While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particula device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.; Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether b the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections (sic) 151 et seq. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

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

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam5156

ID: aiam2785

ID: aiam2786

ID: aiam2787

ID: aiam4970

ID: aiam2356

ID: aiam2355

ID: aiam4397

ID: aiam4841

ID: aiam3445

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?