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: aiam5131OpenMr. Joseph B. Gordon Manager of Engineering EIS Brake Parts P.O. Box 1315 Berlin, CT 06037; Mr. Joseph B. Gordon Manager of Engineering EIS Brake Parts P.O. Box 1315 Berlin CT 06037; "Dear Mr. Gordon: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1993 to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency. It has been forwarded to this office because you have, in essence, requested a legal opinion as to the acceptability of a product that your company is considering manufacturing. As you describe it, the product provides an intermittently blinking stop lamp function when the brake pedal is applied. You are concerned that such a device 'might be confused with hazard warning lights', and that there may be 'other problems/restrictions connected with its manufacture.' You have asked for our advice. Motor vehicle lighting in the United States is subject to both Federal and State requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment are the Federal requirements to which I refer. Standard No. 108, which was issued under the authority of the Safety Act, prescribes requirements for stop lamps and other lamps that must be followed by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and met at the time the vehicle is sold by the dealer to its first owner. One of these requirements, set forth in S5.5.10(d) of the standard, requires stop lamps to be steady-burning. Because your product would create a flashing light, it could not be used as original equipment on a motor vehicle, whether installed by the manufacturer, or by the distributor or dealer after the vehicle has left the factory and before its first sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. The Safety Act includes a provision which governs modifications to vehicles after their initial sale. This Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from making modifications that affect compliance with Standard No. 108 (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). Thus, a vehicle owner may install your product without violation of Federal requirements. However, we interpret the Safety Act as prohibiting the installation of such a product by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), these persons shall not 'render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' In our view, this forbids the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the Act does not forbid the sale of componentry such as your product which creates a noncompliance once it is installed. In summary, under Federal law, any person may sell your device, but only a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may install it. We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State prohibit the use of flashing stop lamps, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2639OpenMr. John L. O'Connell, Pupil Transportation Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles, State Street, Wethersfield, CT 06109; Mr. John L. O'Connell Pupil Transportation Administrator State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles State Street Wethersfield CT 06109; Dear Mr. O'Connell: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking whether a school bu manufacturer can sell a bus to a private school or to a contractor for use in the transportation of the handicapped that is not built in compliance with the new school bus safety standards.; The new school bus definition to which you refer in your letter wa issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the direction of Congress. The definition requires that all buses carrying more than 10 persons to or from school or related events (other than common carriers in urban transportation) must be constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards.; The buses to which you refer transport children to and from privat schools and also transport the handicapped. There is no distinction between private school and public school for purposes of the application of the school bus safety requirements. Accordingly, a bus designed to carry more than 10 persons to and from a private school must be constructed in accordance with the requirements and must be equipped with the lights, paint, and signs of a school bus. The same situation exists for buses designed for the transportation of the handicapped if they carry more than 10 persons to and from school or related events.; In conclusion, a manufacturer is not permitted to sell a bus designe to transport school children to and from school and related events, unless that bus is contructed (sic) in accordance with the requirements. Schools may purchase, however, small vehicles (fewer than 10 passenger) that are not built according to the requirements. These vehicles are not considered school buses for purposes of the application of the requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4286OpenMr. Tony U. Otani, Adyna Corporation, 6124 Candor Street, Lakewood, CA 90713; Mr. Tony U. Otani Adyna Corporation 6124 Candor Street Lakewood CA 90713; Dear Mr. Otani: This letter responds to your letter asking whether there are an regulations with which you must comply in producing an invention you call an Automotive Steering Wheel Stabilizing Aid. I regret the delay in this response.; You describe your product and include a picture. The article yo describe is a thick urethan rubber pad that a motor vehicle driver can fasten to the thigh with a band or buckle. The top part of this pad is contoured to fit under the steering wheel. You state that a driver can use this pad to apply pressure to the steering wheel, holding the wheel steady so that he may drive on a long distance highway when the course is straight. The driver then has his hands free.; Your product falls within the jurisdiction of the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) if it is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' as that term is defined in S102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines 'motor vehicle equipment' in relevant part as follows:; >>>...any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originall manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any *accessory*, or addition to the motor vehicle...(Emphasis added.)<<<; In determining whether an item of equipment is an 'accessory,' th agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Under this framework, your invention is a motor vehicle accessory.; While NHTSA currently has no standard applicable to the kind o accessory you describe, the agency does not have authority to regulate your invention. Even in the absence of a standard, please note that if you decide to market this product, then under our regulations and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, you have the responsibility to conduct notice and remedy campaigns if you or the agency later find that your product has a safety-related defect.; We are concerned with the safety consequences of your product. Thi kind of product may encourage a driver to take his hands from the steering wheel while he is operating a motor vehicle, and therefore may increase the risk of accident involving a motor vehicle. For example, removing one's hands from the steering wheel makes a driver less efficient in responding to any unanticipated road event that may require a quick change in vehicle direction. Further, a driver who feels free to do something with his hands other than steer the vehicle may not be devoting full time and attention to his driving.; I ask you to give these implications your fullest consideration, an hope you find this information helpful in making your decision.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1824OpenHonorable Harley O. Staggers, Chairman, Committee on interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Harley O. Staggers Chairman Committee on interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your February 19, 1975, request for our evaluation o Representative B. F. Sisk's concern that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorrectly interpreted the definition of 'Motor vehicle' as it appears in S 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966:; >>>Sec. 102. As used in this title -- (3) 'Motor vehicle' means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanica power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<; Mr. Sisk questions whether air-braked trailers which transport far commodities from the field to processing plants or warehouses qualify as motor vehicles under this definition. You also ask for the status of a request for exemption from Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, which concerns these vehicles.; The NHTSA has developed criteria for the interpretation of th definition of motor vehicle in the area of heavy vehicles with an off-road function. We conclude that the definition includes vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites. We have cited mobile cranes, drill rigs, and towed equipments such as brush chippers and pull-type street sweepers as examples of this motor vehicle class. Following the rationale of necessary and recurring road use, we have excluded from the definition such farm vehicles as mobile feed mixers used strictly in feedlot operations. We believe, however, that the trailers in question have a primary function of highway transportation of bulk produce form the field to the plant.; The Act does not provide a specific exemption for vehicles used i agricultural pursuits. The only reference in the Act to agricultural vehicles is a provision in Title III (as it appeared in 1966) that authorized 'research, development, and testing relating to the safety of machinery used on highways or in connection with the maintenance of highways (with particular emphasis on tractor safety' (S 301). We have interpreted this provision to express Congress' intent that specialized machines which have a strictly non-transportation function (e.g., paving machines, road graders, farm combines, and farm tractors in particular) are not motor vehicles.; With regard to exemption for the trailers in question, we have on request outstanding to exempt these trailers from the parking brake requirements of the standard, because current designs in response to our requirements conflict with the use of these vehicles. We agree that a design that requires parking brake application upon disconnection of the air supply can interfere with storage and marshalling of these vehicles if brake release is not assured after long periods of disconnection. Because of this specific problem in agricultural pursuits, we have decided to undertake rulemaking to exempt these vehicles from that requirement for a year in order to permit manufacturers to modify their designs to solve the problem. We expect to issue a proposal shortly.; I hope that I have been responsive to your questions, and I welcom further opportunity to clarify our interpretations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam0031OpenMr. E. L. McKinsey, McKinsey's Tire Service, 245 North Street, Meadville, PA 16335; Mr. E. L. McKinsey McKinsey's Tire Service 245 North Street Meadville PA 16335; Dear Mr. McKinsey: This is in response to your recent letter to me which asked whether th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 makes it 'unlawful to regroove, sell or offer for sale any tire that has been regrooved, in all states of the union.'; Section 204 of the Act reads as follows: >>>Sec. 204. (a) No person shall sell, offer for sale, or introduce fo sale or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, any tire or motor vehicle equipped with any tire which has been regrooved, except that the Secretary may by order permit the sale of regrooved tires and motor vehicles equipped with regrooved tires which he finds are designed and constructed in a manner consistent with the purposes of this Act.; (b) Violations of this Section shall be subject to civil penalties an injunction in accordance with sections 109 and 110 of this Act.; (c) For the purposes of this section the term 'regrooved tire' means tire on which a new tread has been produced by cutting into the tread of a worn tire.<<<; Therefore, while regrooving is not itself unlawful, the Act doe prohibit sale, offering for sale, or introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce any tire or motor vehicle equipped with any tire which has been regrooved.; For your information I enclose a copy of a notice published in th Federal Register (32 F. R. 11579, August 10, 1967, 32 F. R. 12501, August 29, 1967) under which the Secretary of Transportation will receive information and data which could form the basis for a request to permit the sale of regrooved tires.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0140OpenMr. William J. Norton, General Propulsion, 16222 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach, CA 92647; Mr. William J. Norton General Propulsion 16222 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach CA 92647; Dear Mr. Norton: Thank you for your letters dated January 20 and 28, 1969, in which yo supply Certification information. It is our opinion that the nomenclature, as stated on your certification label for use on the multi-purpose passenger vehicle, does fulfill the requirements of Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the new Certification requirements effective with vehicles manufactured after August 31, 1969. The same label could be altered for use on the van trucks, see paragraph two of Mr. O'Mahoney's letter to you dated February 5, 1969. A copy is enclosed.; The label you propose to use on the chassis-cab does not fulfill th requirements set forth in 49 C.F.R. S 371.13, formerly 23 C.F.R. S 255.13, which states in part, 'Identifies the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with which its manufacturer states the chassis-cab fully complied for the principal end uses of such vehicle.'; Your statement, 'This cab-chassis conforms with all applicable Federa motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above for the principal end use intended. End use * *.,' or other structure has adequate information with which to meet his statutory responsibilities. A copy of the Federal Register, Volume 33, Number 250 is enclosed. Chapter III, Subchapter A contains all of the pertinent details.; We trust the reply will be of assistance to you in your desire t comply with existing requirements of the National Highway Safety Bureau.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Performance Analysis Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4137OpenMr. Ivan Chien, President, Friendship Over Water, Inc., 8F-6, No. 9, San-Min Road, Taipei, Taiwan, REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Mr. Ivan Chien President Friendship Over Water Inc. 8F-6 No. 9 San-Min Road Taipei Taiwan REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Dear Mr. Chien: This responds to your letter seeking information about our requirement applicable to 'hub covers and wheel covers'. The only applicable requirement for those items is set forth in Standard No. 211, *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps* (49 CFR S571.211, copy enclosed). That standard specifies that wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall *not* incorporate winged projections. Hub covers and wheel covers that you manufacture for use on vehicles other than passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not subject to any standards issued by this agency.; However, as a manufacturer of hub caps and wheel covers, you incu statutory responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*., 'the Safety Act'), even for those hub caps and wheel covers not subject to Standard No. 211. If either your company or this agency determines that some of your wheel covers subject to Standard No. 211 do not comply with that standard *or* determines that any of your wheel covers contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to notify your distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and remedy the noncompliance or defect. In the case of wheel covers, section 154(a)(2)(B) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) requires that, if there is a determination of a noncompliance or defect, the manufacturer must notify distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either:; >>>1. repair the wheel cover so that the defect or noncompliance i removed, or; 2. replace the wheel cover with an identical or reasonably equivalen wheel cover that does not have a defect or noncompliance.<<<; Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer of the whee covers must bear the full expense of the recall campaign and cannot charge the purchaser for the remedy if the wheel cover was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign began.; We have several regulations relating to defect and noncomplianc notification and remedy campaigns. Those regulations are identified in the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. That sheet also gives you a broad overview of our statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to manufacturers.; You also asked about obtaining necessary 'approvals' before sellin these products in the United States. For those items subject to Standard No. 211, NHTSA does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the products to be certified to a governmental entity and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States the manufacturer of the product must certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests, the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Once you have determined that your wheel covers comply with Standard No. 211, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires you to furnish to each of your distributors and dealers at the time of delivery of the wheel covers a certification that those wheel covers conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section further provides that your certification 'may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.'; You also asked how you apply for the approval of the SAE, AAMVA, an CHP. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is a private group that issues recommended practices for the design and performance of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. You are not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to obtain the approval of SAE prior to marketing your products in the United States.; You may obtain information about the SAE standards by contacting tha group at the following address: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096, USA. The group may be contacted by telephone at (412) 776-4841.; Various States may also have requirements concerning wheel covers However, section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that '(w)henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard.' Thus, any non-identical State safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211 would be preempted by the provisions of the Safety Act, making it legally unenforceable.; States do have authority to enforce identical standards related to th same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211, and some may exercise that authority. To learn more about this issue, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20036, USA. Their telephone number is (202) 296-1955. The Department of California Highway Patrol may be contacted at the following address: Enforcement Services Division, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804, USA. Their telephone number is (916) 445-1865.; For your information, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rule that apply to all parties subject to the standards and regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment subject to one of our safety standards to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of motor vehicle equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the motor vehicle equipment is imported into the United States.; The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, *Procedural Rules*. Thi regulation requires all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this county. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o 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 designation 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. This designation must be received by this agency before your whee covers are imported into the United States.; If you need further information or a clarification of our regulations please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4998OpenMr. Raymond B. Kesler Kesler Research Enterprises 5508 Cahuenga Blvd. North Hollywood, CA 91601; Mr. Raymond B. Kesler Kesler Research Enterprises 5508 Cahuenga Blvd. North Hollywood CA 91601; "Dear Mr. Kesler: This responds to your February 29, 1992 letter askin the agency to reconsider its decision to deny your earlier petition for rulemaking to amend Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. As explained below, your request is again denied, for the same reasons explained in the previous denial. You initially petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. After reviewing the petition, the agency denied your request, finding that (1) a safety need for a wider field of view for passenger side convex mirrors had not been established and (2) your suggested mirror system would, by comparison with currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduced a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed. (56 FR 42715, August 29, 1991). In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, styled a 'petition for reconsideration,' you restated your previous request for the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require a mirror with a 25 inch radius of curvature and a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. That request does not provide any new information beyond what was presented in your initial petition. Petitions for reconsideration may be filed only in response to an agency rule. See 49 CFR 553.35(a). A denial of a petition for rulemaking is not a rule, since such denials do not amend any existing provision in the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for reconsideration. It is possible that there might be instances in which additional information has become available since the agency considered and denied the initial petition for rulemaking. If such a situation were to arise, the petitioner could file a new petition for rulemaking, asking again for the requested action based upon the newly available information. NHTSA would consider this as a petition for rulemaking. As noted above, your correspondence did not provide any new information. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for rulemaking. Instead, your correspondence is simply a request for NHTSA to take the same action you previously asked us to take in a petition for rulemaking. Absent any new information, there is no reason for NHTSA to reexamine its previous conclusion on this matter. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of the agency's regulations on your part. In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, you made the statement that your product 'should be approved to be made available to the driver as an optional choice.' In our notice denying your petition, the agency tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited from being installed on vehicles by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. However, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to the required mirrors, for the safety reasons explained at length in the denial notice. See 56 FR 42716, August 29, 1991. Hence, your product may be installed as a supplement to the required mirrors on current vehicles, without any amendments to Standard No. 111. 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"; |
|
ID: aiam3727OpenMr. Buck Burwell, Vice President, Merchant's, Inc., 9073 Euclid Ave., Manassas, VA 22110; Mr. Buck Burwell Vice President Merchant's Inc. 9073 Euclid Ave. Manassas VA 22110; Dear Mr. Burwell: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, askin questions about a group of trucks tires you wish to sell. Specifically, your company received a large shipment of truck tires from Tong Shinn Chemical Company in Korea. Some of those tires did not have the D.O.T. symbol and other information labelled on the sidewall, as required for all new truck tires by Safety Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119). Your company tried to return the tires to the Korean manufacturer, because tires which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119 may not be legally sold in this country. However, the Korean manufacturer has gone out of business, leaving your company with $15,000 worth of tires which may not be sold legally in this country unless appropriate information is labelled on the sidewalls.; You indicated in your letter that you would be willing to label th appropriate information onto the sidewalls of the tires. Tong Shinn has indicated that those tires are of the same quality as the tires it shipped to you with the DOT markings. Further, you indicated that your company would be willing to store the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, in the event a safety-related recall is necessary. After considering these facts and representations, I believe you may label the tires with the necessary information and sell them, provided that you get some more information from the Korean manufacturer.; This agency has previously allowed the marking of truck tires by party other than the manufacturer in only one instance. That case, which also involved imported truck tires, included four factors which led the agency to make an exception to the policy that only a tire manufacturer can label the necessary information on the sidewall of the tires. Those factors were:; >>>(1) The manufacturer certified that the unmarked tires met th requirements of Standard No. 119, except for the labelling requirement,; (2) The manufacturer provided the appropriate information to b labelled on the tires,; (3) The manufacturer agreed to be responsible for the tires in th event of a safety-related recall, and; (4) The manufacturer agreed that the marking method to be used by th importer would not weaken the tires and destroy their compliance with Standard No. 119.<<<; In this case, Tong Shinn has already provided the first item liste above. It will be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn to learn what information should be labelled on the tires for purposes of section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) and also the appropriate codes and information for the tire identification number, which must be labelled on the sidewalls of the tires per 49 CFR 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping* (copy enclosed). Please furnish Mr. Kratzke with a copy of the information you receive from Tong Shinn on this subject.; As to the third item above, you indicate that your company would b willing to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety- related recall. To do so, it will be necessary for your company to record the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, and store that information for a three year period. For further information on the responsibilities you will have to undertake, see section 574.7 for tire registration requirements for tire manufacturers.; It will also be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn and explain ho you propose to mark the information of the sidewalls of these tires, and get them to agree that this method of marking the tires will not affect their compliance with Standard No. 119. Again, please furnish a copy of that agreement to Mr. Kratzke of this office.; After you have received this additional information, this agency has n objection to your company marking the tires and selling them. Please understand that this is permitted only because of the unique circumstances of this particular situation, and that if the Korean manufacturer had not gone out of business, you would not be allowed to mark these tires. However, in these circumstances, some flexibility in the requirements is necessary to help you avert a financial loss, while maintaining the necessary safety assurances for purchasers of these tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3728OpenMr. Buck Burwell, Vice President, Merchant's, Inc., 9073 Euclid Ave., Manassas, VA 22110; Mr. Buck Burwell Vice President Merchant's Inc. 9073 Euclid Ave. Manassas VA 22110; Dear Mr. Burwell: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, askin questions about a group of trucks tires you wish to sell. Specifically, your company received a large shipment of truck tires from Tong Shinn Chemical Company in Korea. Some of those tires did not have the D.O.T. symbol and other information labelled on the sidewall, as required for all new truck tires by Safety Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119). Your company tried to return the tires to the Korean manufacturer, because tires which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119 may not be legally sold in this country. However, the Korean manufacturer has gone out of business, leaving your company with $15,000 worth of tires which may not be sold legally in this country unless appropriate information is labelled on the sidewalls.; You indicated in your letter that you would be willing to label th appropriate information onto the sidewalls of the tires. Tong Shinn has indicated that those tires are of the same quality as the tires it shipped to you with the DOT markings. Further, you indicated that your company would be willing to store the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, in the event a safety-related recall is necessary. After considering these facts and representations, I believe you may label the tires with the necessary information and sell them, provided that you get some more information from the Korean manufacturer.; This agency has previously allowed the marking of truck tires by party other than the manufacturer in only one instance. That case, which also involved imported truck tires, included four factors which led the agency to make an exception to the policy that only a tire manufacturer can label the necessary information on the sidewall of the tires. Those factors were:; >>>(1) The manufacturer certified that the unmarked tires met th requirements of Standard No. 119, except for the labelling requirement,; (2) The manufacturer provided the appropriate information to b labelled on the tires,; (3) The manufacturer agreed to be responsible for the tires in th event of a safety-related recall, and; (4) The manufacturer agreed that the marking method to be used by th importer would not weaken the tires and destroy their compliance with Standard No. 119.<<<; In this case, Tong Shinn has already provided the first item liste above. It will be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn to learn what information should be labelled on the tires for purposes of section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) and also the appropriate codes and information for the tire identification number, which must be labelled on the sidewalls of the tires per 49 CFR 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping* (copy enclosed). Please furnish Mr. Kratzke with a copy of the information you receive from Tong Shinn on this subject.; As to the third item above, you indicate that your company would b willing to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety- related recall. To do so, it will be necessary for your company to record the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, and store that information for a three year period. For further information on the responsibilities you will have to undertake, see section 574.7 for tire registration requirements for tire manufacturers.; It will also be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn and explain ho you propose to mark the information of the sidewalls of these tires, and get them to agree that this method of marking the tires will not affect their compliance with Standard No. 119. Again, please furnish a copy of that agreement to Mr. Kratzke of this office.; After you have received this additional information, this agency has n objection to your company marking the tires and selling them. Please understand that this is permitted only because of the unique circumstances of this particular situation, and that if the Korean manufacturer had not gone out of business, you would not be allowed to mark these tires. However, in these circumstances, some flexibility in the requirements is necessary to help you avert a financial loss, while maintaining the necessary safety assurances for purchasers of these tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.