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: aiam0109OpenMr. D. C. Gershon, Director of Engineering, Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd., Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, England; Mr. D. C. Gershon Director of Engineering Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd. Newport Pagnell Buckinghamshire England; Dear Mr. Gershon: This is in response to your letter of August 27 and your cable o September 5.; You have written me with respect to the possibility of crash-testing a Aston Martin with weight added to the 6 cylinder engine so as to approximate the weight of a V8 engine which you may introduce in the future.; I am puzzled by your opening statement 'We are arranging . . . to cras one of our DBS cars . . . on your instructions and as we previously agreed to do . . ..' A review of the correspondence between the Federal Highway Administration/National Highway Safety Bureau and Aston Martin Lagonda does not disclose either our instructing you, or you (sic) agreeing, to crash test any motor vehicle. Generally, this correspondence has concerned the limited production vehicle problem and Public Law 90-283.; Since the demonstration procedure set forth in certain of the standard involves a crash test, an actual crash test seems the best way for a manufacturer to verify conformance with these standards. The standards, however, do not *per se* require a crash test, and 23 C.F.R. S255.11 specifically states that 'As approved equivalent may be substituted for any required destructive demonstration procedure.'; With respect to your planned test for September 13, our engineers d not view the 40 pound weight differential as significant, and, assuming no further modifications to the DBS, crash testing a 6 or a V8 simulation would be sufficient to demonstrate compliance for the current 6 or projected V8 model.; I understand your concern with the 'thought of having to smash car every time there is a change in specification', but you will have to face this issue every time a new Federal standard appears with a crash demonstration procedures (sic). You may not know of newly issued Standard No. 212 (Windshield Mounting - Passenger Cars), requiring a barrier collision test, and I enclose a copy for your information.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations |
|
ID: aiam4120OpenMr. Sidney K. Saksenberg, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, CSA Limited, Inc., P.O. Box 690347, Houston, TX 77269-0347; Mr. Sidney K. Saksenberg Manager of Regulatory Affairs CSA Limited Inc. P.O. Box 690347 Houston TX 77269-0347; Dear Mr. Saksenberg: This responds to your November 12, 1985 letter to NHTSA's Office o Vehicle Safety Compliance, concerning the packaging requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, *Brake Fluid*, You asked whether the brake fluid container you enclosed would comply with the standard. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.; By way of background information, I must explain that NHTSA does no pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on your letter and enclosure.; The sample container you enclosed is plastic and has a resealable scre cap. The cap is attached to a plastic band, or ring, encircling the opening of the container, and the attachment is broken when the cap is twisted open. The cap itself is lined with an inner seal which you have indicated is impervious to the packaged brake fluid.; Standard No. 116 specifies performance and labeling requirements fo motor vehicle brake fluids and their containers. Paragraph S5.2.1 of the standard sets forth specific requirements for container sealing of brake fluid packages:; >>>Each brake fluid or hydraulic system mineral oil container with capacity of 6 fluid ounces or more shall be provided with a resealable closure that has an inner seal impervious to the packaged brake fluid. The container closure shall include a tamper-proof feature that will either be destroyed or substantially altered when the container closure is initially opened.<<<; The container you enclosed appears to be provided with a resealabl closure, i.e., the twist-off cap, and an impervious inner seal. The cap's tamper-proof feature is the attachment to the plastic ring that would be broken (and thus 'destroyed or substantially altered') when the cap is initially opened. Although not required by the standard. you have taken the commendable extra step of including a statement on the cap that warns purchasers not to accept the container if the seal is broken. We would suggest that you ensure that the warning is clearly legible.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0656OpenMr. Bernard Belier, U.S. Resident Engineer for CITROEN S.A., U.S. Technical Research Corporation, 801 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10017; Mr. Bernard Belier U.S. Resident Engineer for CITROEN S.A. U.S. Technical Research Corporation 801 Second Avenue New York NY 10017; Dear Mr. Belier:#The questions asked by your letter of March 10, 1072 have been compared with the applicable paragraphs of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104 and the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J942.#1.>>>The purpose of paragraphs 2.11 and 4.4.2b of J942 is to allow the testing of both manual and automatic systems using the same procedure. The wording of 4.4.2b attempts to equalize the usual cleaning cycle of each type of system. It is apparent that the manual system allowed for by 4.4.2b is one in which a single actuation, if held long enough, would put 15 cc of fluid through the nozzle. The system you described is not of this type, nor is it an automatic system. You must therefore comply with the intent of the test, which would be to operate your system for 8,000 washer cycles, as stated in paragraph 3.4. Each washer cycle is that which puts approximately 15 cc of fluid through the nozzle. Since your system is not the manual system implied in the standard, the three-second rule would not apply. Time limitation would be dictated by the 'No./min' column of Table 1 of J942, i.e., two washer cycles per minute.#Therefore, the pump and control switch you described, along with the other parts of the system, if they meet all other prescribed parameters, would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104.<<<#2.>>>An automatic pump cycling device would not be limited by the three-second rule. It would be required to meet the 'No./min' column of Table 1 of J942, i.e., two washer cycles per minute.<<<#3.>>>Paragraph 3.1 does not specify the duration of water spray, number of water sprays, or start time of wiper action. No standard wiper blade, windshield, or mechanism is specified. These are the items which, in conjunction with the washer, must produce an effective wipe/wash system.#The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned that the entire system provide good washing and wiping, and is not concerned with compliance of individual components.<<<#4.>>>'Repeatedly,' as used in paragraphs 4.2.2a and b, means the repeated application of the control device (push button, usually) which is designed to cause the water to squirt out of the nozzles. Practically, this reproduces a driver's attempts to activate the system on a cold day, not knowing if it is frozen or plugged. Upon warming up, the system must not have been damaged, and must still function after removal of the ice or plug. Without this safeguard, many systems would be rendered inoperative on the first cold day by an impatient driver.<<<#5.>>>To our knowledge, there is no reservoir size stated by Federal or State regulations.<<<#Please ask for further information, if needed.#Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4110OpenMr. Paul Miller, Sales Manager, Arizona Bus Sales, Inc., 4001 South 34th Street, P.O. Box 21226, Phoenix, AZ 85036; Mr. Paul Miller Sales Manager Arizona Bus Sales Inc. 4001 South 34th Street P.O. Box 21226 Phoenix AZ 85036; Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your February 27, 1986 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking us to clarify Federal requirements applying to the sale of school buses.; You first asked whether a dealership that sells 15-passenger vans to private school violates Federal law if the vans do not comply with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The answer to your question is yes.; As we explained in our previous letter to you dated June 24, 1985 NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of all new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under Federal law, a 'bus' is a vehicle designed to carry *10* or more passengers (11 persons or more, including the driver), and a 'school bus' is a bus sold for purposes that include transporting school children to and from school or school-related events. We require persons selling new buses to ensure that those vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards when they are sold for purposes that include carrying school children. A person who sells a new bus for pupil transportation purposes would be subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act if the bus does not comply with Federal school bus safety standards.; Your second question asked whether the lease between the dealership an the school could be dissolved since the sale involved noncomplying buses. While we have no regulations which void or 'dissolve' sales of noncomplying motor vehicles, the school might be able to contact the dealership that sold the noncomplying school buses and arrange to have the vehicles repurchased or modified to meet Federal school bus safety standards. In addition, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law. In the past, many dealers who have been notified by NHTSA of the illegality of selling noncomplying vans as school vehicles repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law.; Your final question asked about an October 15, 1982 memorandum fro Arizona's Motor Vehicle Division regarding Arizona's definition of a 'school bus.' The Motor Vehicle Division had determined that it had no authority at that time to extend Arizona's school bus definition to buses used to carry school children to school-related activities. You believed that this interpretation conflicted with Federal law and asked for clarification of the matter.; It is important to separate NHTSA's regulations for school buses fro state school bus regulations. State regulations apply to the use of motor vehicles. Your state's definition of a 'school bus' is thus relevant for determining the state requirements applicable to school bus use. The consequence of Arizona determining that activity buses could not be considered 'school buses' under state law was to exclude those vehicles from its vehicle use laws for school buses. On the other hand, as explained above, Federal regulations apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Our 'school bus' definition is relevant for determining manufacturers' compliance with certifying their vehicles to the school bus safety standards and sellers' compliance with Federal requirements to sell complying school buses. Since our 'school bus' definition includes buses sold to transport school children to school- related events, persons who sell new vehicles designed to carry 10 or more passengers to persons intending to use the buses for that purpose must sell complying school buses. Whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under state regulations does not affect the responsibility of manufacturers and sellers to comply with Federal law.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5208OpenWayne Ferguson, Research Manager Transportation Research Council Department of Transportation Commonwealth of Virginia Box 8317 University Station Charlottesville, VA 22903; Wayne Ferguson Research Manager Transportation Research Council Department of Transportation Commonwealth of Virginia Box 8317 University Station Charlottesville VA 22903; Dear Mr. Ferguson: Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1993 enclosing a copy of a joint resolution of the Virginia General Assembly to study the use of deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth, with the goal of allowing use of these lamps. The Transportation Research Council has been asked to evaluate potential legal problems regarding state regulation of deceleration lights, especially as they may relate to Federal preemption in the area of vehicle safety equipment. You would like to know whether 'the current federal regulations and standards dealing with various vehicle safety devices pre-empt Virginia's proposal to permit deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth?' If the answer is affirmative, you request advice on 'the proper course of action to obtain federal approval of the use of deceleration lights.' The answer to these questions is dependent upon the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act (Act) (l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and the characteristics of any specific warning system. The Act does not permit a State to impose a safety requirement upon a motor vehicle that differs from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in any area of performance that is covered by the Federal standard (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The applicable Federal standard in this instance is 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. We understand that a deceleration warning system is intended to inform a following driver that the vehicle ahead is slowing. Such a system can consist of one or more lamps, red or amber in color, and either flashing or steady-burning in use. Further, such a system can be original motor vehicle equipment or aftermarket equipment. The Federal requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to original equipment in all instances. Two provisions are important with respect to supplementary lighting equipment such as a deceleration warning system. Under S5.5.10(d), unless otherwise provided by S5.5.10, all original motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether or not required by Standard No. 108, must be steady burning in use. It is for this reason that we informed The Flxible Corporation on December 8, 1986, that we had interpreted Standard No. 108 as applying to all lighting equipment on non-emergency vehicles and not just the equipment required by Standard No. 108. Thus, the amber-lamp deceleration warning system that Flxible had been asked to install on transit buses was acceptable to NHTSA in a steady-burning mode but not a flashing one. Similarly, we advised Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990, that if a deceleration warning system is one that does not consist of additional lamps but one that operates through the tail or stop lamp system, it must also be steady burning. The second relevant provision is that of S5.1.3, original lighting equipment of a supplementary nature must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. We also informed Flxible that simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3. On the other hand, the simultaneous use of the Flxible amber and red rear lamps in a steady burning mode would not be precluded by this section. In summary, we conclude that Virginia could permit the use of a red or amber original equipment deceleration warning system operating in a steady burning mode through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones. A system that is not permissible as original equipment would also not be permissible as an aftermarket system. Although the preemption provisions and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, the Act also provides, for both new and used vehicles, that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may 'knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed . . . in compliance' with Standard No. 108 or any other Federal safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). An action which created an adverse effect upon lamp performance would partially render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108. In our view, flashing deceleration lamps would 'render inoperative' the compliant lamps installed by the vehicle manufacturer by potentially confusing following drivers. For this reason, it is our opinion that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed a deceleration warning system on a truck in Virginia would be in violation of section 1397(a)(2)(A) if that system consisted of flashing lights, or operated in a flashing mode through lamps that are normally steady burning in use. Since a State may not legitimize conduct that is illegal under Federal law, Virginia could not permit such businesses to install deceleration lamps on vehicles. However, the Act does not prohibit installation of a flashing light system by a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. For this reason, section 1397(a)(2)(A) does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, we believe that it would be inappropriate for Virginia to encourage such modifications, in view of the potential adverse safety consequences of unexpected flashing lamps. Moreover, because it appears that the many of the vehicles will be operated in interstate commerce, we suggest that you also obtain the views of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to determine whether that agency's regulations affect trucks with deceleration lights. You should direct your inquiry to James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3404, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. You also asked about the proper course of action to obtain Federal approval of the use of deceleration lights. The agency does not 'approve' or 'disapprove' safety systems but will advise, as we do here, whether such systems are permitted or prohibited under Federal law. There appear to be certain types of deceleration warning systems that would not be prohibited under existing Federal law. With respect to systems that would not be allowable under Standard No. 108, these systems could only be permitted if NHTSA were to amend Standard No. 108 through rulemaking. Any person who believes that the standard should be amended may submit a petition for rulemaking. The agency's procedures for petitions for rulemaking are set forth at 49 CFR Part 552. If we can be of further help, our Office of Research and Development may be able to assist you, and I suggest you contact Michael Perel for copies of pertinent research contracts on deceleration warning systems. Mr. Perel may be reached at 202-366-5675. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1929OpenMr. Alfred H. Faull, President, Tiger Tanks, Division of Faull Enterprises, Inc., 20795 Main Street, Carson, CA 90745; Mr. Alfred H. Faull President Tiger Tanks Division of Faull Enterprises Inc. 20795 Main Street Carson CA 90745; Dear Mr. Faull: Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1975, concerning the manufactur and installation of replacement tanks for Dodge, Ford, and Chevrolet vans.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated n motor vehicle safety standard relating to replacement fuel tanks. There is, however, a safety standard which imposes performance requirements upon motor vehicles with regard to their fuel systems (Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*). Thus, if installation of your replacement tank is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the tank or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of S108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563). That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) prohibi any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle of item or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (S108(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, even if installation of your replacement tank occurred after the first purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle's compliance with the fuel system integrity standard would still be mandatory where one of the above named persons performed the installation. If the replacement tank caused the fuel system to no longer comply with the safety standard, the installer would have rendered inoperative a system installed in compliance with Standard 301.; The Traffic Safety Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation t make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. Therefore, even though replacement fuel tanks are not the subject of a standard, they still must be designed for safety.; In addition, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulates interstat carriers, including fuel systems for operational and auxiliary equipment. These regulations might be of interest to you and are enclosed. Your attention is directed to the section concerning fuel systems, pages 51 through 54.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0375OpenMr. Richard I. Moss, Washington Representative, Trailer Coach Association, 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 922, Arlington, VA 22209; Mr. Richard I. Moss Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association 1800 North Kent Street Suite 922 Arlington VA 22209; Dear Mr. Moss: This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1971, requesting a interpretation of the applicability of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation to the mobile home and recreational vehicle industry.; You have asked if there is a specific regulation requiring the moto vehicle dealer to report tire data to the motor vehicle manufacturer when the vehicle is sold equipped with new tires installed by the manufacturer. There is no requirement that the vehicle dealer report tire data to the vehicle manufacturer, however, in the event the vehicle is sold with tires different from those shipped on or in the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle dealer would have to report the name and address of the purchaser along with the tire identification number to the tire manufacturer.; You have asked if the Administrator would apply section 113(f) of th Act to require vehicle dealers to provide tire data to the vehicle manufacturer when the vehicle is sold equipped with tires installed by the vehicle manufacturer. The vehicle manufacturer is required to keep records of tires shipped on or in his vehicles as well as the name and address of the first purchaser. It is doubtful that any additional requirements will be considered unless this system appears to be ineffective.; Regarding your question whether there is a regulation requiring th vehicle manufacturer to report tire data to the tire manufacturer, there is no requirement that (sic) vehicle manufacturer report tire information to the tire manufacturer because the responsibility for issuing defect notification to the first purchaser of the vehicle rests with the vehicle manufacturer and not with the tire manufacturer.; You have also asked, in a situation where a vehicle dealer refuses t provide 'tire records' to the vehicle manufacturer, would this constitute a 'due care' defense for the vehicle manufacturer who would be unable to maintain the records required by the regulation. Because each enforcement action is handled separately, it is impossible to determine in advance whether this would be considered a 'due care' defense in the situation you describe, however, it would be taken into consideration before an enforcement action would be initiated. If vehicle dealers refuse to cooperate and provide first purchaser information which section 113(f) of the Act requires vehicle manufacturers to maintain, the Administration would consider issuing a regulation making this mandatory.; If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3415OpenMr. Roy Littlefield, Director, Government Relations, National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc., 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Roy Littlefield Director Government Relations National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association Inc. 1343 L Street N.W. Washington DC 20005; Dear Mr. Littlefield: This responds to your March 27, 1981, letter to Mr. Kratzke of m staff. In your letter, you requested a clarification of a statement in my March 11, 1981, letter to Mr. Harry Shirai, concerning the importing of used tires into this country. Specifically, I had indicated that one means by which used tires could legally be imported into the United States would be for the tires to be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, met the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119). You have asked for more information on what steps would have to be taken to ensure that the imported tires complied with all of the requirements for this alternative.; Since receiving your letter, this agency has re-examined this subject We recognize the severe supply problems facing the industry at this time and the possibly grave adverse price effects on consumers if such shortages are not eliminated. Bearing in mind the serious safety concerns which are involved, the agency has concluded that precedents exist for another alternative solution that would achieve the desired result without compromise of safety.; Used tires imported for retreading are unquestionably 'pneumati tires,' as that term is defined in Standard 109. They cannot, however, legally be used on the public highways, since the tread on casings is almost always well under 2/32 of an inch. The use of tires with such minimal tread on trucks in interstate commerce is prohibited by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR S 393.75(c)) and would violate this agency's specifications for State vehicle inspection standards (49 CFR S 570.9(a) and 49 CFR S 570.62(a)). Hence, the majority of States would not certify a vehicle as passing inspection with these tires and trucks with these tires cannot be used in interstate commerce.; Further, it is important to examine the intent of the importers o these tires.; According to the representations made by your organization and som individual members, it is our understanding that these tires would be imported solely for retreading purposes. In other words, these casings are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment (retreaded truck tires), rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). Objective proof of this intent can be found in the fact that significant numbers of used foreign truck tires were imported into this country between 1975 and 1980, yet this agency has no information indicating that these tires, which did not meet the requirements of Standard 119, were used or sold without being retreaded.; Based on these considerations, we conclude that truck tire casing which have less than 2/32 inch tread and which are imported, introduced into interstate commerce, offered for sale or sold solely for the purpose of retreading are not 'items of motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of that Act. Precedent for the use of such criteria is found in action by the agency in 1969 when it decided that mini-bikes were not 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That decision was made because mini-bikes were prohibited from highway use in the vast majority of the States, and because the manufacturers' subject intent, proven by several objective factors, was not to build vehicles for use on the public roads (34 FR 15416, October 3, 1969).; As you know, there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truc tires. I urge you to stress to your members the need to assure the soundness of the casings used for retreading, so that no safety problems arise from retreading these tires. Should such a problem arise, this agency would consider rulemaking to establish a safety standard for retreaded truck tires, as well as exercising its authority with regard to items containing a safety-related defect.; Should you have any questions on the actual mechanics of importin these casings, and the duties which would be applicable, I suggest that you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U.S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20229. He can be reached at (202) 566-8651.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1377OpenMr. Richard Wright West, West & Wilkinson, P.O. Box 257, 2815 Huntington Avenue, Newport News, VA 23607; Mr. Richard Wright West West & Wilkinson P.O. Box 257 2815 Huntington Avenue Newport News VA 23607; Dear Mr. West: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requestin information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks of modifying existing gasoline tanks.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity* establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108 (a)(1) of the National Traffic Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. The installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.; There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-o gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and Standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(e)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.; The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicle exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7). If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel tank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2586OpenMr. John Watson, Krystal Glass Co., 224 St. Francis Drive, Boulder Creek, CA 95006; Mr. John Watson Krystal Glass Co. 224 St. Francis Drive Boulder Creek CA 95006; Dear Mr. Watson: This responds to your March 11, 1977, question whether the staine glass portholes manufactured by your company for use on van vehicles have to comply with Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. You contend that since the portholes are backed by complying safety glazing the intent of Standard No. 205 is met, even though the stained glass itself is not safety glazing.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot agre with your interpretation. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing material for use in specified locations in motor vehicles. All parts of your stained glass porthole windows must comply with the requirements of the standard. The safety glazing that backs your portholes could be damaged during a crash and the vehicle occupants could be exposed to the noncomplying stained glass. The NHTSA, therefore, disagrees with your conclusion that the intent of Standard No. 205 is met by the Krystal Glass porthole windows.; You should be aware that paragraph S6.2 of the standard requires prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing material that is designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, (15 U.S.C. S 1381, *et*. *seq*.), and by marking the glazing with the 'DOT' symbol and a manufacturer's code mark. A prime glazing material manufacturer is defined as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. A manufacturer's code mark is assigned by the NHTSA upon the written request of a manufacturer.; Enclosed is a copy of the ANS Z26 standard, as requested in you telephone conversation with Hugh Oates of this office.; 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.