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: aiam5200OpenMs. Margaret W. Mouzon Mouzon Information Services 2687 Apple Way Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1801; Ms. Margaret W. Mouzon Mouzon Information Services 2687 Apple Way Ann Arbor MI 48104-1801; "Dear Ms. Mouzon: This responds to your letter of June 4, 1993 requesting information on dealer responsibility for occupant restraint system installation. You asked if a dealer is required to replace a deployed air bag prior to selling a used car. You also asked if the air bag must be operable when a dealer sells a showroom or demonstration model of an 'otherwise new' car. With regard to your first question, I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so. With regard to your second question, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' (Emphasis added) Section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) 'shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Because of these statutory requirements, a dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag installed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, if the air bag is not functional. A showroom or demonstration model would be considered a new car, as it has never been sold for purposes other than resale. I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the two letters discussed above. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam5202OpenMs. Margaret W. Mouzon Mouzon Information Services 2687 Apple Way Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1801; Ms. Margaret W. Mouzon Mouzon Information Services 2687 Apple Way Ann Arbor MI 48104-1801; "Dear Ms. Mouzon: This responds to your letter of June 4, 1993 requesting information on dealer responsibility for occupant restraint system installation. You asked if a dealer is required to replace a deployed air bag prior to selling a used car. You also asked if the air bag must be operable when a dealer sells a showroom or demonstration model of an 'otherwise new' car. With regard to your first question, I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so. With regard to your second question, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' (Emphasis added) Section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) 'shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Because of these statutory requirements, a dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag installed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, if the air bag is not functional. A showroom or demonstration model would be considered a new car, as it has never been sold for purposes other than resale. I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the two letters discussed above. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4697OpenRichard A. Kulics, Esq. 401 S. Woodward - Suite 370 Birmingham, MI 48009; Richard A. Kulics Esq. 401 S. Woodward - Suite 370 Birmingham MI 48009; "Dear Mr. Kulics: This is in reply to your letter of December 5, l989 to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office, on behalf of your clients Liphardt Associates and Pierre Enterprises, Inc. You have informed us that Liphardt is an Independent Commercial Importer (ICI) under EPA regulations. The vehicles it imports are modified by Pierre. Both entities have the identical mailing address. This location is within a Foreign Trade Zone. You have also informed us that Liphardt/Pierre (L/Pe) will apply for status as a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592. It is the practice of L/PE to transport its nonconforming vehicles directly from the vessel into the Zone, to perform conformance modifications in the Zone, and then file a consumption entry, post bond, and submit conformance documentation to DOT. After DOT and EPA have released the vehicle, it is delivered to its owner. You have requested that L/Pe 'be allowed to submit conformity packets to your agency prior to the submission of the consumption entry package, i.e., upon submission of the FTZ entry transportation of the vehicle into the Zone , so that it may enter the vehicle as 'conforming.'' Under this plan, the current method of operation would remain much the same, except that L/Pe would prepare an HS-7 Declaration Form at the time the vehicle is transported into the Zone. This Form would be submitted to DOT along with a conformity package, for review and release, if appropriate. Then, when the actual consumption entry is filed, the vehicle would be entered as 'conforming' merchandise. The purpose of this request 'is to eliminate the costs associated with posting a special bond purely for DOT purposes', and to speed 'up the process of importation, thus reducing the costs associated with storage.' As you state, 'What L/Pe proposes is that it be allowed to close out the obligation while the vehicle is still in the custody of the Customs Service.' In substantiation of your request, you have called our attention to certain provisions of l9 CFR Part l46 Foreign Trade Zones, specifically section 146.2 outlining the obligations of Customs' supervision, section 146.10 providing for examination of merchandise necessary to facilitate the proper administration of any law that Customs is authorized to enforce, and section 146.31 stating that admission of merchandise into a Zone is subject to the regulations of the Federal agency concerned. Under the facts as stated in your letter, we have concluded that your clients must provide a DOT bond under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966 (l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988 (P. L. 100-562), but that there is no legal reason why its obligations to DOT may not be satisfied before the conformed vehicle enters the customs territory of the United States. As we understand it, the Foreign Trade Zone Act of l934 (l9 U.S.C. 81a et seq.) is intended to establish areas into which merchandise may be imported temporarily, 'without being subject to the customs laws of the United States', before being sent 'into customs territory of the United States' (section 81c(a)). A Zone therefore is a legal fiction established solely for the administration of customs laws. Section 2(a) of the l988 Act repealed the authority of the Customs Service over the importation of vehicles subject to the l966 Act. Accordingly, the new regulation governing the importation of nonconforming motor vehicles on and after January 31, l990, 49 CFR Part 591, is not a 'customs law' (unlike the existing regulation which is a joint regulation with DOT that specifically applies to importation into the customs territory of the United States (19 CFR 12.80(b)). In pertinent part, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the l966 Act (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(10(A)) prohibits the importation 'into the United States' of nonconforming vehicles. Although a Zone is not generally considered customs territory, in this instance they are both within the United States, and an arrangement which defines the 'United States' as comprising both customs territory and foreign trade zones has been upheld as valid (Klockner, Inc., v. United States (1984) 8 CIT 3, 590 F. Supp. 1266). Under section 108(c)(1) of the l966 Act, as amended (l5 U.S.C. 1397(c)(1)), a nonconforming vehicle 'shall be refused entry into the United States' unless 'an appropriate bond' has been furnished to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into conformity within a reasonable time after such importation.' Therefore, because 49 CFR Part 591 is not a 'customs law', any distinction between a Zone and customs territory is legally irrelevant for purposes of the l966 Act. Further, because both a Zone and the customs territory are physically within the boundaries of the United States, an importation of a nonconforming vehicle into either a Zone or the customs territory requires an accompanying DOT conformance bond. Nevertheless, the l988 Act does not impose any restrictions upon either DOT or your clients that prohibits them from entering conformed vehicles into customs territory. However, we see the procedure a bit differently than the one you discussed. The HS-7 Form and its accompanying bond must be completed not later than the admission of the vehicle into the Zone. Customs retains its role of sending these documents to DOT. When conformance work is completed, L/Pe provides certification to DOT. Because of the current low volume of nonconforming imports, we anticipate that our review will be completed within two weeks of receipt of the certification. If the certification is acceptable, the bond is released, and L/Pe may then enter the vehicle as no longer subject to DOT conformance regulations (or, as you express it, 'conforming merchandise'). Thus, L/Pe will be able to close out its obligation while the vehicle remains in the custody of Customs, even though it is not freed from the bond requirement. As a final comment on the time factor, we intend to require complete documentation only for the initial make, model, and model year (assuming that the initial submission is acceptable). Although L/Pe must keep verification records on each vehicle it conforms, certifications subsequent to an initial submission need not be accompanied by documents, and could be transmitted by FAX. As we see it, these simple certifications would not require extensive review, improving our ability to respond in a more timely manner. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /"; |
|
ID: aiam2060OpenMr. Stephen L. Oesch, Communications Department, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Watergate Six Hundred, Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Stephen L. Oesch Communications Department Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Watergate Six Hundred Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Oesch: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1975, inquiring as t the legislative basis for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) May 13, 1975, amendment of Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, to delay for 1 year the application of the low-corner impact requirements to vehicles with wheelbases exceeding 120 inches (40 FR 20823).; The sections of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub L. 89-563) supporting the agency's May 13, 1975, action are sections 103(a) and 103(f) (15 U.S.C. 1392(a), 1392(f)). Section 103(a) directs the Secretary to establish appropriate motor vehicle safety standards which are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. The 1-year delay in application of the low-corner requirements to 'full-sized' cars was granted as a means of providing Chrysler with relief from the serious financial difficulties it was experiencing. Based upon the information presented by Chrysler to the agency, compliance with the low-corner requirements by its 'full-sized' cars would endanger its ability to continue functioning as an automobile manufacturer. Imposition of these pendulum requirements on Chrysler was therefore not considered practicable.; Granting the relief contained in the May notice meets the need fo motor vehicle safety in that jeopardizing the existence of Chrysler as one of the United States' major motor vehicle manufacturers would have a distinct impact on the technological advances fostered by competition among these members of the motor vehicle industry. In addition, loss of Chrysler as a viable competitor in the motor vehicle market would almost certainly have an unhealthy economic impact.; Section 103(f) of the Traffic Safety Act specifies factors to b considered in prescribing standards: that they be 'reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle.' On the basis of the information submitted by Chrysler explaining the effect of this requirement on it as a motor vehicle manufacturer, the agency determined that a delay of 1 year in the imposition of the low-corner hit to the type of vehicles in question would be reasonable, in light of these policy considerations.; The NHTSA did not follow the procedures prescribed in section 113 o the Traffic Safety Act relating to cost information in its handling of Chrysler's request to delay for one year the application of the low-corner impact requirements to vehicles with wheelbases exceeding 120 inches since the Chrysler request did not constitute an objection 'to an action of the Secretary.' The low-corner impact requirements were issued in 1971 and it was not that action of the Secretary which was opposed by Chrysler. Chrysler, in its petition, has requested that new action be taken to provide them with some relief from their existing financial burdens.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1455OpenMr. H. Tsukano, Submanager,Technical Divisions,Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.,Kojima-Building, 10-2, Nishishinjuku,1-Chome, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. H. Tsukano Submanager Technical Divisions Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co. Ltd. Kojima-Building 10-2 Nishishinjuku 1-Chome Shinjuku-Ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Tsukano:#This is in response to your February 27, 1974 request concerning brake hose identifications codes and labeling, conflicts of Federal and State standards,and procedures for certifying hose, end fittings, and hose assemblies in compliance with Standard No. 106, *Brake hoses*. This also responds to your March 25, 1974, (ref T-76) request for approval of your proposed hydraulic and vacuum brake hose labeling.#Notice 10 was published on February 26, 1974. It modified the labeling requirements,and a copy is enclosed. It is certain that another notice will be published shortly which may modify the marking requirements further. Therefore I advise that you not undertake modifications of your labeling in the near future.#In answer to your February 21 letter, if we require a code at a later date, the code will not relate to the MRA code. Concerning the marking of multi-piece fittings, the designation must appear on each part of a reusable end fitting, although this requirement is presently under reconsideration.#With regard to conflicting State regulations such as Pennsylvania's, our regulation as of September 1, 1974, preempts any State brake hose regulations which are not identical with respect to the same aspects of performance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides at S 103(d):#>>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no state or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either 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 ...<<<#However, it is permissible, if a manufacturer wishes, for him to place Pennsylvania labeling on the reverse side of the hose.#It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that his products comply with Standard No. 106. You may conduct a test program, or you may hire an independent test laboratory to conduct the test program for you. One test laboratory in the United States which tests brake hose is VPI of Blacksburg, Virginia. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not conduct certification tests, but it dies conduct tests on manufacturer products to enforce compliance.#In answer to your March 25 letter, the hydraulic brake hose marking in 'Face A' appears to conform to the requirements of S5.2.2, assuming that letter 'size' refers to letter height. Notice 10 permits the manufacturer designation to be other than block capital letters. 'Face B' is not regulated by our standard.#With regard to the brake hose end fitting and brake hose assembly examples, they appear to conform to S5.2.3 and S5.2.4 if the letter 'size' refers to letter height. It should be noted that Notice 10 excludes labeling of two-piece fitting and certain assemblies and that the next notice may make further modifications.#With regard to vacuum brake hose, your 'Face A' example appears to conform to S5.2.2. if letter 'size' refers to letter height. S5.2.1 is not applicable and therefore the strip is not required. 'Face B' is not regulated by our standard.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5171OpenTrooper Bob Dittert Texas Department of Public Safety 10110 NW Freeway Houston, TX 77092; Trooper Bob Dittert Texas Department of Public Safety 10110 NW Freeway Houston TX 77092; "Dear Mr. Dittert: This responds to your inquiry about how the Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affect State laws applicable to the same aspect of performance. You were particularly interested in our requirements for window tinting. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard 205, 'Glazing Materials,' issued under the Safety Act, has requirements that limit the amount of tinting that can be placed on windows in new vehicles. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, no person shall manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety- related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. The prohibition in 108(a)(1)(A) against selling complying vehicles and items of equipment does not apply to a vehicle or item of equipment after its first sale to a consumer. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act applies to modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. I would now like to apply this background to the particular questions raised in your letter. Question One: 'Are the CFRs law and enforceable only by federal agents?' NHTSA's regulations and safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations and standards apply without State ratification to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces these regulations and safety standards. Question Two: 'Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?' The FMVSS's apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, and not to used vehicles or equipment. NHTSA may bring enforcement actions against manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of equipment that do not comply with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA also enforces the 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act against commercial entitites that modify new or used vehicles in a manner that violates the 'render inoperative' provision. We also note that NHTSA can investigate safety defects in new or used vehicles or items of equipment. Question Three: 'Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFRs?' We understand you to ask this in the context of window tinting requirements, since elsewhere in your letter you ask whether a Texas law that allows light transmittance of 35 percent violates Federal law. Your question relates to 103(d) of the Safety Act, which states: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either 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. Whether State law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205. As stated above, Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses (108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act). The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law. Question 4: 'Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp `black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?' You are correct that 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act regulates the modifications of only the commercial entities listed in that section of the Act, and that the Safety Act does not prohibit an individual from modifying his or her vehicle such that it no longer complies with the FMVSS's. The States may have requirements governing the modification of a vehicle by individual owners. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4152OpenStephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs., Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071; Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell Esqs. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles CA 90071; Dear Messrs. Waimey and Hansell: This responds to your letter asking two questions about Part 541 *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. First, you asked if the 17-character vehicle identification number (VIN) required on original equipment engines and transmissions had to appear in a single line. You stated that your client would like to mark the engines and transmissions by splitting the VIN into two groups, with the second group of characters directly below the first. Such markings would comply with Part 541. Second, you asked if your client could use a trademark that was less than one centimeter high for marking replacement parts. Markings less than one centimeter high would not comply with the requirements of Part 541 applicable to replacement parts. These conclusions are explained in detail below.; If a vehicle manufacturer was not identifying its engines and/o transmissions with at least an 8- character VIN derivative as of October 24, 1984, S541.5(b)(1) requires the engine and transmission to be marked with the full 17-character VIN. That section does *not* require that the 17 characters appear on the same line. However, the preamble to the final rule establishing Part 541 explained the policy reasons for requiring the full 17-character VIN as follows:; << |
|
ID: aiam3086OpenMr. David Gibbard, Vesely Company, 2101 N. Lapeer Road, Lapeer, Michigan 48446; Mr. David Gibbard Vesely Company 2101 N. Lapeer Road Lapeer Michigan 48446; Dear Mr. Gibbard: This is in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr Schwartz of my office on August 6, 1979, and the previous telephone conversations between Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Arnold, formerly of your company, and Mr. Erickson of our Office of Rulemaking and Mr. Arnold. It also serves to supplement the letter from Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, to the president of your company, Mr. McCollough.; Barring an order of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, w anticipate no changes in the rule beyond those made in Notice 8. Further, the contract with the Society of Automotive Engineers to act as the NHTSA's agent in distributing manufacturer identifiers, which Mr. Arnold was advised the agency was negotiating, has been entered into. We are therefore able to confirm the answer to your company's remaining questions with certainty. The technical questions you raised will be answered first, as we understand you would prefer to have these answers in writing also.; 1. You have asked whether Vesely can use the first two characters o the sequential number (the 12th and 13th characters of the VIN if one includes the check digit) for internal company purposes as the number of vehicles produced is more than 500, but never exceeds 9,999 of a particular model annually. There is nothing in the standard which precludes utilizing the 12th and 13th characters for internal purposes so long as the agency is advised which characters are to be used and that they are to be disregarded.; 2. You have also advised us that Vesely desires to use severa manufacturer identifier the codes beginning with the letter V. When the NHTSA published its rule establishing the manufacturer identifier system on August, 17, 1978, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) immediately submitted a list of approximately 500 identifiers on behalf of vehicle manufacturers. These identifiers had been previously assigned to manufacturers by the SAE in their role as assigner of world manufacturer identifiers on behalf of the International Standard Organization. Unfortunately, the configuration Vesely proposed was reserved by the SAE at that time.; Because of the substantial experience the SAE has had in this area, th NHTSA has contracted with them to assign the remaining manufacturer identifiers. If you would write to the SAE at the address given below, advising them of the types of vehicles you are now producing or intend to produce, they will assign your manufacturer identifiers at no charge. Please write to:; >>>Society of Automotive Engineers 400 Commonwealth Avenue Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096 Attention: Leo Ziegler<<< I trust this information answers the questions you have concerning th VIN. Please contact us if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3781OpenMr. Jeff S. Brantner, 316 Whitebirch, Wenatches, WA 98801; Mr. Jeff S. Brantner 316 Whitebirch Wenatches WA 98801; Dear Mr. Brantner: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1983, to the Urban Mas Transit Administration, which was forwarded to this agency for reply, concerning legal requirements regulating window stickers. The following discussion addresses the Federal requirements applicable to sticker or other films applied to glazing materials in motor vehicles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority t govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which 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 cars) and abrasion resistance.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that films such as th type referred to in your letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter hi vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that 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 in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 'Render inoperative' means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; Please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff if you have any furthe questions (202- 426-1834).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1492OpenMr. Peter Dakin, 733 spartan Drive, Rochester, MI 48063; Mr. Peter Dakin 733 spartan Drive Rochester MI 48063; Dear Mr. Dakin: This is in response to your letter of May 4, 1974, requestin information concerning Federal safety standards applicable to the assembly of kit cars.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits th manufacture for sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. therefore, if the vehicle you are building is going to be used as a means of transportation on the road, it must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. The mere use of a vehicle on public highways constitutes an introduction into interstate commerce and is prohibited unless compliance with the safety standards has been achieved.; Part 567.4(g)(1)(ii) of the certification regulations provides th producer of the kit with an option as to whether or not he certifies that the vehicle will comply with all applicable safety standards if completed according to his instrucitons. We would urge you to avoid undertaking the assembly of a kit that does not give assurance as to its ultimate ability to comply. If the producer of the kit takes the responsibility of certifying the completed vehicle, you as the asembler of the vehicle must exercise reasonable care in following the instructions he provides.; For your information I have enclosed a sheet entitled 'Where to Obtai Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' which will direct you to the proper source for obtaining a copy of the safety standards and regulations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.