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: aiam4811OpenMr. Richard Cahalan Director of Core Services Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Human Services Department of Mental Retardation 160 North Washington Street Boston, MA 02114; Mr. Richard Cahalan Director of Core Services Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Human Services Department of Mental Retardation 160 North Washington Street Boston MA 02114; "Dear Mr. Cahalan: This responds to Mr. Oscar Harrell's lette requesting information about Federal regulations concerning the modification of vehicles to accommodate mentally retarded individuals. According to that letter, in response to conversations about this issue with Mr. George Shifflett of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Harrell received copies of interpretation letters from my office to Mr. Vincent Foster dated September 4, 1986 and to Mr. W.G. Milby dated November 26, 1979. These letters express NHTSA's policy concerning modifications of vehicles to accommodate the special needs of handicapped individuals and the requirement in 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibiting commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Given the public interest against restricting the mobility of the handicapped, it is the agency's policy, depending on the particular situation, to consider certain violations of that section as technical ones justified by public need. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that a van conversion company modified new Dodge Maxi-vans for your agency before they were purchased. Among the steps taken by the converter to accommodate handicapped individuals are the removal of the 'top,' the addition of a new 'bottom,' and the installation of a wheelchair lift. According to Mr. Harrell's letter, the converter, when contacted last year, stated that the vehicles, after being converted, comply with State and Federal regulations. You indicated, however, that the converter failed to certify that the vans, as altered, comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. I apologize for the delay in our response. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Based on your letter and the telephone conversation with my staff, it appears that the van converter would be considered an 'alterer' for purposes of of Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Section 567.7 defines 'alterer' as A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale... As an alterer, section 567.7 requires the vehicle converter to do the following: (1) Supplement the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This supplemental label must state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see 567.7(a)), (2) Provide the modified values for the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered if they are different from those shown on the original certification label (see 567.7(b)), and (3) Provide the type classification, if the vehicle as altered has a different type classification from that shown on the original certification (see 567.7(c). If the converter did not comply with these requirements, then it did not fulfill its certification responsibilities under Part 567. From what you have written to us, we assume that is the case. However, this does not in itself mean that the vehicles, as altered, do not comply with applicable safety standards or are otherwise unsafe. If you believe that the conversion of these vehicles poses a safety problem, you should contact this agency's Office of Enforcement and explain the specific safety problem. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5049OpenMr. 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 follow-up inquiry about recent amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems that deletes the requirement for a trailer to have a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. The final rule allows air from the tractor supply lines to be used to release the parking brakes instead of air from such a reservoir. (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) In our earlier response to you dated May 21, 1992, we stated that a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment became effective. That letter explained that while the amendment deleted a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device. You now ask what pressure must be retained in the supply line with any single leakage type failure in the service brake system if an original equipment manufacturer decides to use a system with a protected reservoir. You explained that you are aware of a system that has a 60 p.s.i. pressure amplification valve that results in having 90 p.s.i. holding off the spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to further explain our requirements to you. In deleting the provision requiring a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake, the agency adopted requirements in S5.8 addressing supply line pressure retention. That provision states that under certain test conditions 'any single leakage type failure in the service brake system (except for a failure of the supply line, a valve directly connected to the supply line or a component of a brake chamber housing) shall not result in the pressure in the supply line falling below 70 p.s.i., measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. . .' (S5.8.2) Based on the above provision, the pressure in the supply line is not permitted to fall below 70 p.s.i when measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. Accordingly, a system with 60 p.s.i. in the supply line measured at the forward trailer supply coupling would not comply with the express requirements set forth in S5.8.2. Please be aware that after October 8, 1992, the provision in S5.8.2 applies to all new trailers, including those manufactured with a protected separate reservoir. Your letter appears to imply that there would be no safety problem in having the pressure in the supply line falling to 60 p.s.i. if a pressure amplification valve served to hold off the spring brakes. I note, however, that problems could occur if only one trailer in a mixed train, multiple trailer combination used such an amplification valve. For example, if a single leakage-type failure in the service brake system of such a trailer resulted in the supply line pressure falling to 60 p.s.i., this could cause the supply line pressure in following trailers to also fall to 60 p.s.i. If the following trailers were not equipped with an amplification valve, they could experience brake drag. 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: aiam4637OpenMr. Randy Blackman Per-Lux Inc. 1242 E. Edna Place Covina, CA 91724; Mr. Randy Blackman Per-Lux Inc. 1242 E. Edna Place Covina CA 91724; "Dear Mr. Blackman: This responds to your letter asking for informatio about the application of Federal safety standards to a head restraint that attaches to the rear window of pickup trucks. I hope the following information is helpful. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraint device sold as an item of 'aftermarket' equipment for pickup trucks. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed), would also affect your head restraint if your product were installed by a commercial business on either new or used vehicles. A manufacturer installing your head restraint device on a new truck prior to certifying the truck as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as required by the Safety Act, has certain responsibilities relating to that obligation to certify. Standard No. 302 establishes flammability resistance requirements for trucks that must be met by certain vehicle components, including head restraints. The new vehicle manufacturer that installs your product on the new vehicle would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the head restraint device conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. A commercial business wishing to install the head restraint on new or used vehicles would be subject to statutory considerations that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle without violating the Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render 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 ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. In addition to the materials described above, I am also enclosing a Federal Register notice (53 FR 50047) that NHTSA issued on December 13, 1988, proposing to extend the applicability of Standard No. 202 to light trucks and vans. NHTSA has proposed to make this extension effective September 1, 1991. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding by this fall. We are also returning herewith the sketch you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information which you asked us not to publicly disclose. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4548OpenMr. Gary M. Ceazan Vice President Riken-America, Inc. PO Box 3698 Terminal Annex Los Angeles, CA 90051; Mr. Gary M. Ceazan Vice President Riken-America Inc. PO Box 3698 Terminal Annex Los Angeles CA 90051; "Dear Mr. Ceazan: This is in response to your letter asking whethe tires marked with both an ETRTO (European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization) size designation and a different ISO (International Standardization Organization) size designation can legally be imported into the United States. As discussed below, such tires cannot be imported into the United States, because they do not comply with the applicable safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. All new pneumatic tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.109), and all new pneumatic tires imported for use on motor vehicles other than passenger vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.119). Both of these standards prohibit 'dual-size markings,' or labeling two different size designations on one tire. In the case of passenger car tires, section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with 'one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used.' (emphasis added). This agency expressly prohibited dual-size markings on passenger car tires in a preamble amending Standard No. 109, 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. This prohibition was expressly repeated in subsequent amendments that addressed the question of tire labeling under Standard No. 109, see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974, and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. In the case of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, there is no express prohibition in Standard No. 119 against dual size markings. However, section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with 'the tire and size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1.' NHTSA has interpreted the use of the singular in the phrase 'tire size designation,' rather than the plural 'tire size designations,' to be a prohibition against marking more than one tire size designation on these tires. See the enclosed copies of my January 7, 1988 letter to Mr. E.W. Dahl and my February 16, 1988 letter to Mr. Mike Kaizaki. Since tires marked with two size designations would not comply with our tire standards, they could not legally be imported into the United States, according to the requirement specified in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). If you have any further questions about our tire standards or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures /"; |
|
ID: aiam4012OpenMr. W.S. Deason, Development Manager, IMI Norgren Enots Ltd., Enots Works, P.O. Box 22, Eastern Avenue, Lichfield, Staffordshire WS 13 6SB, ENGLAND; Mr. W.S. Deason Development Manager IMI Norgren Enots Ltd. Enots Works P.O. Box 22 Eastern Avenue Lichfield Staffordshire WS 13 6SB ENGLAND; Dear Mr. Deason: This responds to your June 14, 1985 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, *Brake Hoses*. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.; You asked about 'DOT Certification' of your air brake hose and fittin assemblies. Our agency does not certify or approve in advance motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This 'self-certification' process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. This determination can be made by product testing. The tests in Standard No. 106 are performance requirements that your products must meet when tested by the agency for compliance.; The data forming the basis for your certification is retained by you and does not have to be submitted to NHTSA for approval. Our agency investigates safety-related defects and noncompliances with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If a question should arise as to the compliance of your product with NHTSA requirements, you will be requested to produce records to show how you determined compliance. If you or the agency determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, you are obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge.; Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 106 defines 'brake hose' as: >>>a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.<<<; We wish to emphasize that the definition of 'brake hose' include flexible conduits manufactured out of nylon tubing that transmit or contain the pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. To be sold in the United States, your brake hose assemblies consisting of nylon tubing and 'push-in' type tube fittings must be certified as meeting all applicable requirements of Standard No. 106.; Under Standard No. 106, certification is accomplished when you mark on component of each of your reusable fittings with the 'DOT' symbol, pursuant to paragraph S7.2.2. The DOT symbol is your representation that your products were manufactured in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You are also required by the standard to mark your products with a designation, identifying you as the manufacturer, that is filed in writing with the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. The designation is intended to identify the manufacturer or assembler of brake hoses in the event of a safety-related defect or noncompliance necessitated recall.; You asked whether there are standard forms for manufacturers t register their designation. The answer is no. Standard No. 106 describes the procedures for designation registration. NHTSA will accept any designation consisting of letters, numerals, or a symbol, or a combination of these. If your chosen designation has not been selected previously by another manufacturer, it is accepted and recorded by NHTSA.; I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which apply to al manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This rule requires your company to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days after you import your products into the United States.; The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, *Procedural Rules*. Subpart D o this 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 the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:; 1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form an 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 addres of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authorit to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.; In addition to the copies of the materials described above, I have als enclosed a copy of Standard No. 106 with amendments to the standard. You will also find an information sheet describing Federal statutes and regulations affecting manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and information on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's standards and regulations.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4981OpenMr. Brad Beach 389 Terrace Avenue Suite 204 Virginia Beach, VA 23451; Mr. Brad Beach 389 Terrace Avenue Suite 204 Virginia Beach VA 23451; "Dear Mr. Beach: This responds to your letter to Mr. Taylor Vinson o my staff, inquiring about Federal safety standards that apply to objects designed to be attached to the rear and side windows of passenger automobiles. Although you did not specify what this object is, you described the object as being 'not transparent,' rectangular in shape, with dimensions of 12 inches in width by 18 inches in length. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your product. Some general background information on the Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self- certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. The agency has issued two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that might affect your product. These are Standards No. 205, Glazing Materials, and No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger automobiles). Standard No. 111 sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors. The standard provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standards No. 205 and 111. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install a device that was not readily removable over the glazing and that impaired the field of view to the rear of the vehicle, that subsequent manufacturer or dealer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and 205 with this additional device installed. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, none of these commercial entities may legally install a sun screen device or other device on a vehicle, if the device would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and/or 205. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as a device that is mounted on the glazing of motor vehicles and that is not readily removable, is responsible for the recall and remedy of all such devices, if it is determined that the device contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. You should note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their own vehicles as they please, without violating any provision of Federal law. Thus, Federal law would not prohibit you, as an individual vehicle owner, from installing any devices you wish in the windows of your own vehicle, even if such installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standards No. 205, No. 111, or any other of our safety standards. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of the safety features designed into their vehicles. However, you should also note that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles by their owners and modifications owners can make to their own vehicles. Each of the States have exercised this authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered and operated within their borders. I cannot advise you about the laws established by each of the States. If you wish to learn whether Virginia or any other State prohibits the installation of your device in a vehicle, you may wish to contact the Department of Transportation for those States in which you are interested. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5037OpenMr. M. K. Chaudhari Director ARAI The Automotive Research Association of India Survey No. 102 Vetal Hill Off Paud Road, Kothrud Pune-411 004 India; Mr. M. K. Chaudhari Director ARAI The Automotive Research Association of India Survey No. 102 Vetal Hill Off Paud Road Kothrud Pune-411 004 India; "Dear Mr. Chaudhari: This responds to your letter requesting th testing procedure for and test results of vehicles equipped with anti-skid brake systems. These systems are also referred to as anti-lock brake systems. You also requested the addresses of equipment manufacturers that produce anti-lock brake systems. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide you information about this topic. 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 ('Safety Act'), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards. I am enclosing a copy of an information sheet entitled, 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment,' which explains a manufacturer's responsibility under NHTSA's regulation. I am also enclosing a copy of the two safety standards issued by NHTSA that apply to brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105) and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). These standards are intended to insure the safe braking performance of vehicles under normal and emergency conditions. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that vehicles they manufacture comply with these performance-oriented standards. Nothing in these standards currently specifies that vehicles be equipped with an anti-lock device. For your information, the agency is considering proposing additional requirements that might require medium and heavy duty vehicles to be equipped with anti-lock brake systems. A copy of that notice is enclosed (57 FR 24212, June 8, 1992). In addition, the agency has issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in which the agency is considering whether to harmonize its passenger car brake standard with international standards. (56 FR 30528, July 3, 1991). A copy of that notice is also enclosed. With respect to your request for test results related to anti-lock brake performance, I am enclosing the agency's most recent report on this topic. It is entitled 'Improved Brake Systems for Commercial Motor Vehicles.' With respect to your inquiry requesting the addresses of equipment manufacturers, the agency is unable to provide such information. The following associations may be able to help you obtain this information: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association 7430 Second Avenue, Suite 300, Detroit, MI 48202 (Telephone No. 313-872-4311, Fax No. 313-872-5400) Brake System Parts Manufacturers Council 300 Sylvan Avenue P.O. Box 1638 Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632-0638 (Tel. No. 201-569-8500, Fax No. 569-0159) 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. The fax number is (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam5126OpenChristopher J. Daniels, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough 1330 Lady Street P. O. Box 11070 Columbia, SC 29211; Christopher J. Daniels Esquire Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough 1330 Lady Street P. O. Box 11070 Columbia SC 29211; "Dear Mr. Daniels: This responds to your letter to Paul Jackson Rice our former Chief Counsel, in which you referred to a tire manufactured in Canada that had had the 'DOT number' obliterated. Because you think the tire was improperly sold in that condition, you asked whether it was illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT number and whether it was illegal to sell or use a tire on the highway without a 'DOT serial number.' By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq., as amended (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, the latter of which includes tires. All new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. This requirement is found at Section 1397 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which provides 'No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . .' The effect of that language is to require that tires manufactured on or after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be legally imported into the U.S. Pursuant to Standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109, New Pneumatic Tires) and Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars), tire manufacturers must certify compliance therewith by molding the symbol 'DOT' onto the tire sidewalls. Further, 49 CFR 574.5 requires that all tires sold in the U.S. have tire identification numbers (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the manufacturers to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect. With that background in mind, your specific questions are answered as follows: 1. Is it illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT serial number? Answer: Yes. Each tire imported into the U.S. for highway use must have molded into or onto the sidewall a TIN and a DOT symbol or in the alternative, be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable safety standards. The only exception to these requirements is that used truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread remaining and which are being imported solely for retreading prior to on- road use may be imported without displaying the TIN or the DOT symbol. 2. Is it illegal to sell or use a tire for highway use without the DOT serial number? Answer: It is illegal for a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to sell a new or retreaded tire to the first customer for purposes other than resale without the DOT symbol and the TIN molded into or onto the sidewall. There are no Federal requirements for the use of such tire once it has been sold to the first customer. There may, however, be state safety requirements pertinent to the use of motor vehicle equipment. For that information you should check with appropriate state officials. If the tire in question is intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check also with the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (Room 3404), of the Federal Highway Administration, at this address. (Telephone (202) 366-1790.) I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0037OpenMr. Tsutosu Nomiyama, Managing Director, Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., 18, 2-Chome Marunouchi Chiyoda- Ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. Tsutosu Nomiyama Managing Director Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association Inc. 18 2-Chome Marunouchi Chiyoda- Ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Nomiyama: In your letter to me dated November 25, you have raised severa questions relating to the status of Japanese motorcycles manufactured after December 31, 1967, and shipped to the United States without windshields.; Specifically you have asked: >>>'1. Is the . . .understanding [correct] that the importation o motorcycles not equipped with windowshields and/or any glazing material will not violate the . . . National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.'<<<; *Answer*: Your understanding is correct. Motorcycles are not require to be equipped with windshields, and conformity to Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 is required only if motorcycles are equipped with windshields.; >>>'2. In case motor cycles without glazing material are imported, wha shall motorcycle manufacturers do in respect to certificate requirements according to Paragraph 114 of the Act and the Notice of October 31, 1967.'<<<; *Answer*: No certification is required for motorcycles which ar imported without glazing materials.; >>>'3. If certification is not required for motorcycles not equippe with glazing material, would there be any problem at the time of importation at U.S. Customs offices that may naturally seek safety certification on all motor vehicles covered by the Federal Standards.'<<<; *Answer*: Under the proposed joint regulations promulgated by th Treasury Department (Bureau of Customs) and the Department of Transportation covering importation of motor vehicles manufactured after December 31, 1967, vehicles not bearing certification will be admitted upon a declaration by the importer or consignee that such vehicle was manufactured on a date when no standards applicable to the vehicle were in effect. To insure that there is no difficulty at the port of entry, it is contemplated that Customs officials will be notified that motorcycles without windshields may be admitted without certification. The proposed joint regulations were published in the *Federal Register* for November 30, 1967, and I enclose a copy for your consideration.; You have further asked: 'Would there be any particular procedures tha could be taken by Japanese motorcycle manufacturers in advance to avoid such a possibility.'; *Answer*: If the motorcycles are shipped in a manner in which they ar not readily visible, it might be advisable to stencil the shipping containers with a legend to the effect that the motor vehicle therein is not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., a motorcycle not equipped with a windshield). Of course, any glazing material shipped for subsequent installation on a motorcycle must bear appropriate certification.; I hope this sufficiently answers your questions. Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M. D., Director |
|
ID: aiam2812OpenMr. Doug Mills, Rt. 1 Box 149, Tellico Plains, TN 37385; Mr. Doug Mills Rt. 1 Box 149 Tellico Plains TN 37385; Dear Mr. Mills: This responds to your recent letter asking additional question concerning the responsibilities of a person converting a pick-up truck into a dump truck, under Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. This office explained the general responsibilities of a person who alters a certified vehicle in a letter to your associate, Mr. Henry Brown, dated February 1, 1978. You now ask questions regarding specific aspects of the conversion operating and whether they can be accomplished without destroying a vehicle's compliance with safety regulations.; Unfortunately, it is impossible for the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) to answer your specific questions. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer or vehicle alterer to determine whether his vehicle is in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that vehicle. The NHTSA cannot review an alteration procedure such as the one with which you are concerned and state that it can or cannot be done in compliance with Federal regulations. There are no safety regulations which require a specific number of bolts or specific bolt locations, for instance. Likewise, Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, is specified only in terms of performance requirements, so the NHTSA cannot tell you whether a modified fuel filler neck will destroy a vehicle's compliance with the standard.; As stated in our previous letter, a person who alters a pick-up truc to convert it to a dump truck must certify that the truck remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Further, the person who makes the conversion must assure that the alterations do not result in any 'safety related defects' whether or not there is a specific safety standard that is applicable. Therefore, you must determine for yourself whether the number of bolts you use, the bolt strengths and the bolt locations will result in safety hazards.; I can answer your question number 8 regarding possible liability fo removal and alteration of the truck bumper. The Federal safety standard for bumpers is only applicable to passenger cars, so you may alter a truck bumper with impunity provided the action does not result in a safety related defect.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.