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: aiam5120OpenMr. M.M. Palkar Senior Manager (Marketing) Kalyani Brakes Limited Aurora Towers, 4th Floor 9 Moledina Road, Pune 411 001 INDIA; Mr. M.M. Palkar Senior Manager (Marketing) Kalyani Brakes Limited Aurora Towers 4th Floor 9 Moledina Road Pune 411 001 INDIA; Dear Mr. Palkar: This responds to your letter asking about Federa requirements for the manufacture of brake hose assemblies. I am pleased to provide this information. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hose assemblies. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' copy enclosed) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety- related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hose is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities you must meet as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 106, 'Brake Hoses,' applies to new motor vehicles and to 'brake hoses' (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above. You ask that NHTSA 'approve' your assemblies so that you can 'punch DOT on the end fittings of the assemblies.' As explained above, NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or conduct pre-sale testing of their products. In the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS's. Your question about 'DOT punching' seems to confuse two options for labeling brake hose assemblies specified in Standard No. 106. The 'DOT' mark is used in the standard to constitute a manufacturer's certification of conformance with all applicable FMVSS's. For hydraulic brake hose assemblies, S5.2.4 of Standard No. 106 requires the DOT mark to be placed on a band (not an end fitting) around the hydraulic brake hose assembly, along with a designation that identifies the assembler. As an alternative to this requirement for a band, S5.2.4.1 permits manufacturers of hydraulic brake hose assemblies to label their assemblies by marking at least one end fitting with the manufacturer designation. Assembly manufacturers choosing to mark their assemblies only with a designation must separately furnish the certification of conformance with the applicable FMVSS's. The certification may be in the form of a label or tag on the completed brake hose assembly or on the outside of a container in which the assembly is delivered. The manufacturer's designation that is marked on either the band or an end fitting of a hydraulic or air brake hose assembly is described in S5.2.4(b) and S7.2.3(b), respectively, of Standard No. 106. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products. You must file your designation (which may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division at the following address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. You may telephone Mr. Richard Carter of the Crash Avoidance Division at (202) 366-5274 if you have questions about filing your designation. I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States. The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information: 1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding 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 mailing address of the manufacturer, 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name, 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer, 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation, and, 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. 7. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. You also asked whether you must obtain approval from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to sell your assemblies in this country. The answer is no. You must meet only NHTSA's requirements to sell your product in the U.S. Please note, however, that assemblies used on commercial vehicles operating in interstate commerce are subject to the requirements of our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). If you are interested in the FHWA's requirements for brake hose assemblies, you can write to that agency at the addressed provided in the enclosed information sheet. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam4592OpenMr. James R. Tomaino Youngstown Rubber Products Company 854 Mahoning Avenue P.O. Box 1377 Youngstown, OH 44501-1377; Mr. James R. Tomaino Youngstown Rubber Products Company 854 Mahoning Avenue P.O. Box 1377 Youngstown OH 44501-1377; "Dear Mr. Tomaino: This responds to your January 30, 1989 letter askin whether a 'permanently embossed raised dot' on your air brake hose assembly satisfies the requirement in Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for a manufacturer identification. As explained below, we believe that use of the raised dot may be potentially confusing, since it isn't readily apparent whether the mark represents an intentional effort to identify the manufacturer of the assembly or is an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process. By way of background, Standard No. 106 sets forth two methods of labeling air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. S7.2.3 states that these assemblies must be labeled by means of a band around the assembly or, at the option of the assembly manufacturer, by means of marking at least one end fitting as described in S7.2.3.1. You have asked us about the labeling requirements under the second option. Since, for reasons of drafting convenience, the second option incorporates the portions of the first option relating to the nature of and filing of the designation, it is necessary to begin with a discussion of the first option. The first option (S7.2.3(b)) provides that the band must be marked with information including: A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol. (Emphasis added.) The second option (S7.2.3.1) requires assemblies to be 'etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b).' (Emphasis added.) The concluding language, 'in accordance with S7.2.3(b),' modifies both of the preceding clauses, i.e., both 'identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly' and 'is filed.' Thus, the identification provided in compliance with the second option 'may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.' Since the raised dot is clearly neither a block capital letter or a numeral, the issue is whether it can be considered a symbol. The dictionary defines 'symbol,' for the purposes relevant to your inquiry, as follows: 'something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental but not intentional resemblance.' (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) The agency concludes that the dot is not a symbol because it is not readily apparent that the raised dot stands for or suggests anything. Instead, the dot appears to be only an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process. Manufacturer identification is crucial for the enforcement of Standard No. 106's requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies. We urge you to use a more distinctive mark to identify your company as the manufacturer of the assembly. To assist you, and in response to your March 17 telephone request, we are enclosing examples of designations which manufacturers of brake hoses, fittings and assemblies have registered with NHTSA. These examples should be helpful in providing ideas for another designation. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Attachment"; |
|
ID: aiam4595OpenMr. James R. Tomaino Youngstown Rubber Products Company 854 Mahoning Avenue P.O. Box 1377 Youngstown, OH 44501-1377; Mr. James R. Tomaino Youngstown Rubber Products Company 854 Mahoning Avenue P.O. Box 1377 Youngstown OH 44501-1377; "Dear Mr. Tomaino: This responds to your January 30, 1989 letter askin whether a 'permanently embossed raised dot' on your air brake hose assembly satisfies the requirement in Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for a manufacturer identification. As explained below, we believe that use of the raised dot may be potentially confusing, since it isn't readily apparent whether the mark represents an intentional effort to identify the manufacturer of the assembly or is an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process. By way of background, Standard No. 106 sets forth two methods of labeling air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. S7.2.3 states that these assemblies must be labeled by means of a band around the assembly or, at the option of the assembly manufacturer, by means of marking at least one end fitting as described in S7.2.3.1. You have asked us about the labeling requirements under the second option. Since, for reasons of drafting convenience, the second option incorporates the portions of the first option relating to the nature of and filing of the designation, it is necessary to begin with a discussion of the first option. The first option (S7.2.3(b)) provides that the band must be marked with information including: A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol. (Emphasis added.) The second option (S7.2.3.1) requires assemblies to be 'etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b).' (Emphasis added.) The concluding language, 'in accordance with S7.2.3(b),' modifies both of the preceding clauses, i.e., both 'identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly' and 'is filed.' Thus, the identification provided in compliance with the second option 'may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.' Since the raised dot is clearly neither a block capital letter or a numeral, the issue is whether it can be considered a symbol. The dictionary defines 'symbol,' for the purposes relevant to your inquiry, as follows: 'something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental but not intentional resemblance.' (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) The agency concludes that the dot is not a symbol because it is not readily apparent that the raised dot stands for or suggests anything. Instead, the dot appears to be only an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process. Manufacturer identification is crucial for the enforcement of Standard No. 106's requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies. We urge you to use a more distinctive mark to identify your company as the manufacturer of the assembly. To assist you, and in response to your March 17 telephone request, we are enclosing examples of designations which manufacturers of brake hoses, fittings and assemblies have registered with NHTSA. These examples should be helpful in providing ideas for another designation. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Attachment"; |
|
ID: aiam5303OpenMr. John M. Tolliday President Dayman USA Inc. P.O. Box 824 Bedford, VA 24523; Mr. John M. Tolliday President Dayman USA Inc. P.O. Box 824 Bedford VA 24523; "Dear Mr. Tolliday: We have received your letter of September 2, 1993 with respect to your wish to import 'British Army Ferret Armored Cars'. The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles 'on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes.' You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine. For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a 'motor vehicle' is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Given the configuration and original military character of the Ferret, we believe that its manufacturer intended that its use of the public roads would be incidental and not primary. Therefore, we have concluded that the Ferret was not a 'motor vehicle' at the time of its manufacture. The question arises whether removal of the Ferret's armament and its importation for civilian use cause it to become a 'motor vehicle' for purposes of our regulations. At first blush, it would appear that the status of a vehicle is permanently determined at the time of its manufacture. This is true with respect to vehicles manufactured and operated exclusively in the United States no matter what modifications are subsequently made. The general provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act do not apply once a domestic vehicle has been sold. As a hypothetical example, the agency does not consider an all-terrain vehicle to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, hence it is not a 'motor vehicle'. Were an owner to modify it so that it could be licensed for use, the original intent of the manufacturer would have been superseded by that of the modifier, but the Act does not impose any obligation upon the modifier to conform the all-terrain vehicle to any Federal safety standards that might apply to its type. The situation differs with respect to imported vehicles. The status of a vehicle is judged as of the time of entry. Returning to our all-terrain vehicle hypothetical, if the vehicle has been modified before it enters the United States so that its primary use will be on the public roads, we would regard it as a 'motor vehicle' subject to compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to the Ferret, we believe that more than removal of its armament is required to cause it to become a 'motor vehicle'. The issue of armament is essentially irrelevant to its character as an off-road or on-road vehicle. The Ferret remains an armored vehicle of limited visibility and of no apparent greater utility for on-road civilian purposes such as transportation of passengers and cargo than it possessed before removal of the armament. It retains the same high ground clearance as it has always possessed, supporting your statement that it will be sold for use on the public roads. We therefore conclude that, as modified, the Ferret will not be a 'motor vehicle' subject to our regulations, and that they may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal standards. Those military vehicles that are manufactured primarily for on-road use are 'motor vehicles'. However, in recognition of the fact that conformance with the Federal safety standards might compromise their ability to fulfill their military mission, the agency has exempted from compliance those motor vehicles that have been manufactured for the armed forces of the United States in accordance with contractual specifications. This exclusion does not apply to foreign military vehicles. Thus, for example, were you seeking to import for resale in the United States trucks of the British Army, they would have to be brought into conformance with applicable truck standards. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5005OpenMr. Tom Mario Vice President Sales Sealco Air Controls, Inc. 215 East Watkins Street Phoenix, AZ 85004; Mr. Tom Mario Vice President Sales Sealco Air Controls Inc. 215 East Watkins Street Phoenix AZ 85004; "Dear Mr. Mario: This letter responds to your inquiry about recen amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to trailers. That final rule (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) amended the standard by deleting the requirement for a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. It also added requirements for the retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's supply line in the event of pneumatic failure and for the prevention of automatic application of trailer parking brakes while the minimum supply line pressure is maintained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. NHTSA promulgates safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One such safety standard, Standard No. 121, specifies performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. Any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. You first asked whether a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment becomes effective on October 8, 1992. The answer is yes. While the amendment deletes a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device. Your next two questions asked which air brake system would be required on certain axles for different types of trailers. As indicated above, any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. I note that while the standard does include certain specific requirements for braking at particular axles, all of the requirements amended or adopted in the October 1991 final rule are written in terms of overall vehicle braking performance. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with these requirements, manufacturers must assess how the selection of brake designs at each axle will affect overall braking performance. 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: aiam4717OpenRobert A. Rogers, Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9015; Robert A. Rogers Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015; "Dear Mr. Rogers: This is in reply to your letter asking fo confirmation that an interpretation of a notice of proposed rulemaking remains in effect with respect to the final rule based upon that proposal. I regret the delay in responding. Specifically, you reference an interpretation dated September 12, l988, that this Office provided Koito Corporation, informing it that each of the two Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) designs depicted 'complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2' of Standard No. l08. The second design consisted of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. We informed Koito that 'under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for 'the VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)', and that this meant that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly or separate from it. However, we also cautioned that our comments were based upon the proposal, and could change with the issuance of the final rule. You have commented that the final rule was the same with respect to the pertinent VHAD wording. This is not entirely true. The final rule (paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(vii)) omitted the parenthetical phrase '(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)'. You also noted that paragraph S7.7.5.2(c)(l) of the final rule defines a headlamp assembly as '(the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism)'. The intent of this language is to specify a VHAD that is a permanent part of the headlamp, and hence integral, or to have a separate VHAD that is part of the mounting mechanism. It was not meant as permitting a VHAD that could be physically separated from headlamp or the mounting mechanism. Thus, in our view and upon our further consideration of the matter, a detachable VHAD does not meet the 'intent' of the final rule. This means that the spirit level design described in your letter, which is not integral to the headlamp or mounting mechanism, is not permissible. We shall provide Koito with a copy of this letter. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4297OpenMr. John K. Liu, President, John K. Liu Enterprises, Inc., Box 544, Valley Forge, PA 19481; Mr. John K. Liu President John K. Liu Enterprises Inc. Box 544 Valley Forge PA 19481; Dear Mr. Liu: This responds to your letter concerning planned modifications to a use Class 8 truck/tractor. I regret the delay in this response. The answers to your questions are provided below.; It should be noted that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that it complies with all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; >>>1. If we take a used Class 8 truck/tractor and modify it by addin an axle to increase the GVWR, do we have to make sure that the modified vehicle complies with the braking requirements of FMVSS 121/CFR 49?<<<; By way of background information, new motor vehicles and items of moto vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, which applies to trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that their new vehicles satisfy the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Also, if a vehicle is modified prior to 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.; A person who modifies a used vehicle is not required to attach certification label. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its GVWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Safety Standard No. 121. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of July 20, 1977, to the Truck Body and Equipment Association in which the agency discusses in more detail how section 108(a)(2)(A) applies to the installation of additional axles in a used vehicle.; >>>2. Do we have to revise the nameplate or install a new nameplat giving the new GVWR and axle ratings?<<<; Under 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, manufacturers of motor vehicle are required to affix a certification label to their vehicles. The label is required to specify, among other things, the gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) and the gross axle weight ratings for each axle. See S 567.4(g). In addition, Safety Standard No. 120, *Tires Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, requires that specifications concerning tire and rim selection be placed on either the certification label or a separate tire information label. See S S5.3.2.; As indicated above, persons who alter certified vehicles prior to firs sale are required to certify that their vehicles, as altered, conform to all applicable safety standards. Such alterers are required by Part 567 to leave the original certification label on the vehicle and add an additional label. See S 567.7. If the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values must be specified. See 567.7(b).; Persons who modify used vehicles are not required to attach certification label. However, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its GVWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Safety Standard No. 120. We encourage you to supplement the original certification label and/or tire information label by an additional label to reflect changes in gross vehicle weight rating, axle ratings, and tire and rim specifications, to avoid confusion on the part of vehicle users.; >>>3. Do we have to adopt a new VIN (vehicle identification number)?<<< The answer to this question is no. Safety Standard No. 115 Require that manufacturers of new motor vehicles provide vehicle identification numbers. The vehicle identification number is not affected by the subsequent modification of the vehicle.; >>>4. Do we have to tell a buyer that he is buying a modifie vehicle?<<<; NHTSA does not have any regulations requiring seller of used vehicle to inform buyers about axle modifications.; Our answers to your questions cover the Federal regulations and law administered by NHTSA. I have also enclosed a general information sheet which provides additional information concerning our regulations.; You should be aware that by adding an axle you are considered manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act and subject to its provisions concerning safety-related defects. Under the Act, manufacturers must notify purchasers of safety-related defects and remedy such defects without charge. Our engineering staff reviewed your plans and noted that without charge. Our engineering staff reviewed you plans and noted that in some instances that addition of an axle to a vehicle could constitute a safety-related defect, by making the vehicle unsafe for anticipated usage. You should carefully analyze this issue for the vehicle in question. Among other things, you should consider whether, as modified, the overall vehicle structure, including the truck's frame, will be able to adequately accommodate the load distribution resulting from the additional axle and/or the higher GVWR, throughout the truck's anticipate length of service.; You may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration's Office o Motor Carrier Standard Concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to your planned modifications. Also, with respect to Question 4, you may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it has any applicable regulations. Finally, a local attorney can advise you concerning the state law implications of your plans.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0426OpenJames F. Latham, Esq., Latham, Pickard and Ennis, Suite A Executive Building, 2534 South Church Street, Burlington, NC 27215; James F. Latham Esq. Latham Pickard and Ennis Suite A Executive Building 2534 South Church Street Burlington NC 27215; Dear Mr. Latham: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1971, inquiring whethe your client, American Jenbach Corporation, is required to comply with the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574). In your letter you state that American Jenbach is engaged in the distribution of portable air compressors and pneumatic tools, the former being purchased in Europe and delivered to the plant in Burlington where tires are added to the wheels and other modifications are made. You state further that American Jenbach also reconditions compressors, and may replace tires as part of this process.; The Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations apply t manufacturers, brand name owners, retreaders, distributors, and dealers of new and retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles manufactured after 1948, and to manufacturers and dealers or motor vehicles manufactured after that date (49 CFR S 574.4). Whether the regulations apply to American Jenbach depends on (1) whether the portable air compressors are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*., hereinafter the Act) and (2) whether American Jenbach is a manufacturer, brand name owner, retreader, distributor, or dealer of new or retreaded tires, or a manufacturer or dealer of motor vehicles.; Section 102 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) defines motor vehicle to mea 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' Without additional information, such as pictures of the vehicles in question, we cannot give you a precise determination as to whether they are motor vehicles under the Act. However, the agency has determined that portable compressors of the type that are mounted on tires for purposes of being towed on public highways are motor vehicles under the Act, and has classified them as trailers under the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations issued pursuant to the Act. As such, they are subject to the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations.; Based upon your letter, it appears that American Jenbach Corporation i an importer of new portable compressors (trailers) and must meet the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping requirements applicable to motor vehicle manufacturers (section 574.10). In addition, under the Act American Jenbach may also be a distributor or dealer of these trailers and, if so, must also comply with the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping requirements applicable to dealers (section 574.9). Finally, American Jenbach would appear to be a tire dealer as to those tires that it replaces on reconditioned compressors and would be required to comply with the requirements applicable to tire dealers (section 574.7) with respect to those tires.; If the vehicles in question are motor vehicles, American Jenbach i required to comply with certain requirements in addition to the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations. Trailers must conform to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which deals with lighting requirements, and must be certified as conforming to all applicable standards in accordance with section 114 of the Act, and the Certification regulations. As of October 1, 1971, American Jenbach must also comply with the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). Copies of these requirements and a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act are enclosed for your guidance.; If you have additional questions, please write to us. Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3381OpenMr. J. Federsel, Product Manager, Teleflex Industrial Inc. 1816 57th Street, Sarasota, FL 33580; Mr. J. Federsel Product Manager Teleflex Industrial Inc. 1816 57th Street Sarasota FL 33580; Dear Mr. Federsel: This responds to your letter of October 8, 1980, in which you requeste an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. You asked us to confirm that your speedometer/odometer meets all the requirements of the rule.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle in accordance with that determination.; However, the agency is willing to give an informal opinion concernin whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. The speedometer/odometer you sent to us does not comply with the speedometer requirements of Standard No. 127. Section S4.1.4 of that rule requires speedometers to include the number '55' in the mph scale, and to highlight that number in some fashion. There is no '55' on the speedometer you enclose with your letter.; It is not possible to determine upon brief examination whether th odometer meets all the requirements of S4.2.5.2, the encapsulation option. The type of examination necessary to make such a determination is not performed by this agency prior to the manufacturer's certification. It is readily apparent, however, that the odometer you sent to us is in violation of section S4.2.3, as you stated in your letter. The odometer would have to have a sixth wheel or other mechanism to indicate when the number of whole miles or whole kilometers travelled exceeds either 89,999 or 99,999, if the device were to comply with the standard. Note that the effective date of the odometer provisions (sections S4.2 through S5.2) is September 1, 1981. Thus, any odometer that you manufacture prior to that date does not have to comply with the odometer requirements. NHTSA encourages manufacturers to meet these provisions voluntarily, however. The speedometer requirements (section S4.1) of Standard No. 127 are presently in effect, and thus all speedometers you manufacture must currently be in compliance.; We emphasize that the above statements are only the agency's opinio based on the information you have supplied, and that opinion is not binding on you or the agency. It is your duty as the manufacturer to determine whether in fact your product meets the requirements of the standard and to certify that compliance. We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4654OpenMr. Frank E. Timmons Deputy Director, Tire Division Rubber Manufacturers Association 1400 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Frank E. Timmons Deputy Director Tire Division Rubber Manufacturers Association 1400 K Street NW Washington DC 20005; "Dear Mr. Timmons: This responds to your September 28, 1989 lette requesting that NHTSA reconsider its August 30, 1989 interpretation (copy enclosed) of the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards ('UTQGS,' 49 CFR /575.104). In that earlier interpretation, the agency was asked by E.H. Galloway about the correct interpretation of the UTQGS provisions requiring one to 'inflate the tire to 24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa.' See //575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Specifically, Mr. Galloway asked whether tires with inflation pressures expressed in both English units (psi) and metric units (kPa) should be inflated to 24 psi or 180 kPa during the testing to determine the tires' traction grades under the UTQGS. In its August 30 interpretation, the agency concluded that tires whose inflation pressure is expressed in both English and metric units should be inflated to 24 psi for the UTQGS traction testing. That interpretation explained its conclusion as follows: The language of the regulation sets forth a general requirement for an inflation pressure of 24 psi, and a subordinate requirement that 'tires with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals' use an inflation pressure of 180 kPa. An examination of the background of this language shows that the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa is to be used only for tire sizes that have inflation pressures specified only in kilopascals. Your letter asked that the agency reconsider this interpretation. You stated that P-metric tires generally are labeled with a maximum inflation pressure of 240 kPa. However, section S4.3.4(a) of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars sets forth an additional labeling requirement for tires whose maximum inflation pressure in expressed in kPa, as follows: 'If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, or 340 kPa, then each marking of that inflation pressure ... shall be followed by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number.' This requirement in Standard No. 109, therefore, prohibits any passenger car tire from being sold or offered for sale in this country with the inflation pressure specified only in kPa. By specifying conditions for use of the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa that are impossible for any tire to satisfy, because of the requirements of Standard No. 109, the effect of the August 30, 1989 interpretation is to remove the alternative inflation pressure from the UTQGS traction testing procedures. A correct interpretation of a regulation gives effect and meaning to all of the language in a regulation. For this reason, I believe the August 30, 1989 interpretation of the UTQGS traction testing procedures was incorrect. I conclude that any tire with its inflation pressure expressed first in metric units, with the equivalent pressure in English units shown in parentheses, is a 'tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals,' as that phrase is used in 49 CFR /575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Accordingly, any such tire would be inflated to 180 kPa for UTQGS traction testing. I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that might have been caused by the August 30 interpretation. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: E. H. Galloway Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility P.O. Box 1671 San Angelo, TX 76902"; |
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.