NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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

Displaying 7431 - 7440 of 16490

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3771 Open The Honorable Robert A. Young, Member of Congress, 4150 Cypress Road, St. Ann, MO 63074; The Honorable Robert A. Young Member of Congress 4150 Cypress Road St. Ann MO 63074; Dear Mr. Young: Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the potentia hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the use of opaque glass in automobiles. Through the exercise of its motor vehicle safety authority, the agency has addressed a part of this potential problem. However, given the limitations on the agency's authority, additional State action is needed to eliminate this potential problem.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, th agency has issued 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 resistances. The specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; In past interpretation letters, the agency has said that solar film an other materials used to make windows opaque 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 of abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to the first 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.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter th vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting or other film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not the installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the 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 to comply with a Federal safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a tinting or other film on a vehicle for an owner if that action would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance performance of the vehicle's glazing. Violation of the render inoperative provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; State law, rather than Federal law, governs the operational use o vehicles by their owners. Thus, it is up to the States to preclude owners from applying tinting or other films to their vehicle windows. A number of States have already adopted such laws. The agency would be glad to provide technical assistance on glazing requirements to the appropriate Missouri highway safety officials working on this problem.; I hope this explains the agency's authority to address the potentia problems posed by tinting and other films. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed
ID: aiam2421 Open Mr. M. J. Denholm, Director of Engineering, Power Controls Division, Midland-Ross Corporation, 490 South Chestnut Street, Owosso, MI 48867; Mr. M. J. Denholm Director of Engineering Power Controls Division Midland-Ross Corporation 490 South Chestnut Street Owosso MI 48867; Dear Mr. Denholm: This responds to Midland-Ross' September 30, 1976, question whether th 'method' specified by Compliance Testing, Inc., in its December 8, 1975, Technical Proposal for Solicitation NHTSA-6-A212 is consistent with the laboratory procedure contemplated by the NHTSA for its test contractors in evaluating the compliance of air-braked vehicles with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The NHTSA laboratory procedure for compliance contractors in the case of Standard No. 121 states in relevant part:; >>>PROCEDURE: A. Physically locate check valve or equivalent device. B. Following manufacturer's recommendation, check the check valve o equivalent device for proper function without disconnecting any air line or fitting. Describe method and technique used.<<<; The Compliance Testing, Inc. (CTI) solicitation was evaluated alon with other proposals and has been accepted by the NHTSA. The 'method' set forth by CTI as its intended course of action in evaluating the compliance of valves in accordance with the requirements of S5.1.2.3 will not appear in the manual produced for NHTSA compliance testing.; I would like to note in closing that this letter does not constitute a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 121. Although the laboratory procedure sets forth the method by which contractors satisfy NHTSA contracts, it does not mean that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of the standard when tested according to its terms by other methods.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4074 Open Mr. Takeshi Tanuma, Chief Operating Office, Nissan Research & Development, Inc., 3995 Research Park Drive, P.O. Box 8650, Ann Arbor, MI 48104; Mr. Takeshi Tanuma Chief Operating Office Nissan Research & Development Inc. 3995 Research Park Drive P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor MI 48104; Dear Mr. Tanuma: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked two separate questions which are discussed in detail below.; First, you stated that you plan to introduce a 1987 carline in Marc 1986. This particular carline has been selected as one that will be subject to the requirements of Part 541. However, Part 541 does not become effective until April 24, 1986. You stated your belief that the introduction of the 1987 vehicles in that carline before the effective date of Part 541 means that none of the 1987 vehicles in that carline will be required to comply with Part 541. Your belief is correct.; As you noted, the effective date for Part 541 is April 24, 1986. Thi effective date means that Part 541 applies to all selected carlines beginning with the 1987 model year. However, the legislative history for Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.), which Title requires that Part 541 be promulgated, expressly states: 'The theft prevention standard cannot apply to a car in the middle of the model year.' H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 11 (1984).; For purposes of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, NHTSA believes tha the model year for a carline begins on the day on which a vehicle in that carline is introduced into commerce in the United States. Thus, if a 1987 model year vehicle in a carline is introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541, the 1987 model year for that carline would have begun prior to the effective date of the theft prevention standard. Obviously, the requirements of a standard do not apply before the effective date. Given the clear expression of Congressional intent that this theft prevention standard cannot apply to a carline in the middle of its model year, NHTSA concludes that a 1987 model year version of a carline introduced into commerce before the effective date of the theft prevention standard is not subject to the requirements of the theft prevention standard for the 1987 model year. That selected carline would, of course, be subject to Part 541 in the 1988 and subsequent model years.; Second, you stated that Nissan plans to affix a metal plate to th engines and transmissions of carlines selected for coverage under Part 541. You asked whether such a metal plate would appear to comply with the requirements of S541.5(d)(1).; You are correct in assuming that all markings which are affixed to part, whether by means of adhesive, special screws, rivets, or welding, are considered 'labels' and must satisfy the requirements of S541.5(d)(1). However, section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act 915 U.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or certify that a vehicle or method of marking complies with the theft prevention standard.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3803 Open Mr. Barry V. Davis, Vice President, Proto-Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 871, Pembroke, MA 02359; Mr. Barry V. Davis Vice President Proto-Systems Inc. P.O. Box 871 Pembroke MA 02359; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1983, with respect t the 'Headlight Kit' which you manufacture as 'an aftermarket add-on headlamp concealment device for the Camaro.' You have stated that it will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by Chevrolet dealers as a new car option. You have asked whether the product requires certification under Safety Standard No. 112, and, if so, how may it be included in your packaging and promotional material. If you are not required to certify, you would like to know if you may use the DOT symbol and the phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' on your packaging.; We have two types of safety standards: those that vehicles must meet and those that individual equipment items must meet. Safety Standard No. 112, Headlamp Concealment Devices, is an example of the former, when equipped with a headlamp concealment device, a vehicle must meet certain performance requirements. The vehicle must meet these requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and be certified as meeting the requirements. Certification of compliance with the vehicle safety standards is provided by the vehicle manufacturer, however, if the vehicles is altered before its sale, in more than a minor way, the alterer must provide an additional certification identifying himself as a modifier and that the vehicle as modified continues to meet the standards. Assuming that Chevrolet dealers perform the modification, it is they, not you, who must apply the alterer's label. The alterer's certification requirements are contained in 49 CFR Section 567.7.; Once a vehicle has been sold, no alterer's certification is required but the party performing the alterations is required to insure that he is not 'rendering inoperative in whole or in part' the headlighting system. We would interpret this to mean that if the concealment system's performance were not the equivalent of that obtainable under Standard No. 112 a violation might exist. The prohibition is established by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the prohibition does not preclude the vehicle owner from himself making any modification he chooses (subject, of course, to local law).; This means that regardless of whether your system is sold to new ca dealers or to retail stores in the aftermarket your company has no certification responsibility. Thus, the use of a DOT symbol would be improper and could even be viewed as technically false and misleading under Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, for which a civil penalty might be imposed. The phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' is also inaccurate. However, if your tests and other date clearly indicate that a Camaro would meet Standard No. 112 with the system in place, we would not object to your including a qualifying phrase such as 'Vehicle can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 if system is installed in accordance with instructions.' That would afford a basis upon which the new car dealer could rely in affixing his alterer's label, and would reassure an after-sale modifier that he was not violating the Act.; I hope that this has been helpful to you. For your information, enclose copies of Standard No. 112, 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and the Act.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3802 Open Mr. Barry M. Davis, Vice President, Proto-Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 871, Pembroke, Massachusetts 02359; Mr. Barry M. Davis Vice President Proto-Systems Inc. P.O. Box 871 Pembroke Massachusetts 02359; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1983, with respect t the 'Headlight Kit' which you manufacture as ' an aftermarket add-on headlamp concealment device for the Camaro.' You have stated that it will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by Chevrolet dealers as a new car option. You have asked whether the product requires certification under Safety Standard No. 112 and, if so how may it be included in your packaging and promotional material. If you are not required to certify, you would like to know if you may use the DOT symbol and the phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' on your packaging.; We have two types of safety standards: those that vehicles must meet and those that individual equipment items must meet. Safety Standard No. 112, Headlamp Concealment Devices, is an example of the former, when equipped with a headlamp concealment device, a vehicle must meet certain performance requirements. The vehicle must meet these requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and be certified as meeting the requirements. Certification of compliance with the vehicle safety standards is provided by the vehicle manufacturer, however, if the vehicle is altered before its sale, in more than a minor way, the alterer must provide an additional certification identifying himself as a modifier and that the vehicle as modified continues to meet the standards. Assuming that Chevrolet dealers perform the modification, it is they, not you who must apply the alterer's label. The alterer's certification requirements are contained in 49 CFR Section 567.7.; Once a vehicle has been sold, no alterer's certification is required but the party performing the alterations is required to insure that he is not rendering inoperative in whole or in part' the headlight system. We would interpret this to mean that if the concealment system's performance were not the equivalent of that obtainable under Standard No. 112 a violation might exist. This prohibition is established by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the prohibition does not preclude the vehicle owner from himself making any modification he chooses (subject, of course, to local law).; This means that regardless of whether your system is sold to new ca dealers or to retail stores in the aftermarket your company has no certification responsibility. Thus, the use of a DOT symbol would be improper and could even be viewed a technically false and misleading under Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, for which a civil penalty might be imposed. The phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' is also inaccurate. However, if your tests and other data clearly indicate that a Camaro would meet Standard No. 112 with the system in place, we would not object to your including a qualifying phrase such as 'Vehicle can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 if system is installed in accordance with instructions.' That would afford a basis upon which the new car dealer could rely in affixing his alterer's label, and would reassure an after-sale modifier that he was not violating the Act.; I hope that this has been helpful to you. For your information, enclose copies of Standard No. 112, 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and the Act.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4799 Open Mr. William D. Rogers President SportsCar America, Inc. 400 South Elliott Road Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514; Mr. William D. Rogers President SportsCar America Inc. 400 South Elliott Road Chapel Hill N.C. 27514; "Dear Mr. Rogers: We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCa America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below. SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an 'Exclusive Distribution Agreement' ('the Agreement') with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a prototype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards. The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the 'Manufacturer.' Under Section l of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with 'those modifications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation' of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CFR Part 567, the Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles. Although you identify SportsCar America as the 'distribution agent', we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale in the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition. Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it would like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar figure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is available to the agency in its determination. If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";
ID: aiam2521 Open Mr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Engineering, 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, CO 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Engineering 5990 N. Washington Street Denver CO 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTS regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, Certification and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.; As you are aware, Part 567 of our regulations requires a statement b the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (S 567.4(g)(4)). The term 'GAWR' is defined in S 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire- ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.; Standard No. 120 specifies that 'each vehicle . . . shall be equippe with tires that meet specified requirements ' (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.; In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery o vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.; With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty ne trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that (sic) necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and S 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4283 Open Mr. T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Control Department, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, with respect to new headlamp and aiming adaptor design. The lens of the headlamp will be titled 60 degrees from vertical. Although this is too extreme an angle for use of mechanical aimers for headlamps, you have developed an adaptor for use with the aimer whereby the new headlamp may be mechanically aimed. You have asked whether mechanical aim using the new adaptor is permissible.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does prescribe the type of aimers to be used with replaceable bulb headlamps, but not the adapters. As you have noted, the standard does require such headlamps to be capable of mechanical aim by incorporating on the lens face three pads which meet the requirements of the standard's Figure 4. You have informed us that your headlamp design complies with this requirement, and furthermore meets the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.; However, there are some practical considerations that are important i you intend to market this headlamp. Although providing an aimer adaptor is not required by Standard 108, no adapters for your unique lamp have been provided to service facilities. The only adaptor which exist today are those designed to accommodate sealed beam headlamps, and replaceable bulb headlamps with lens angles up to 50 degree for smaller lamps and 40 degrees for large ones. Neither of these can accommodate the lamp you have proposed.; In summary, the standard does not appear to preclude use of your ne designs, and although not specifically required by the standard, an adaptor should be provided as original vehicle equipment since suitable adapters do not exist in the service community.; Subsequent to August 4, we received your request for confidentia treatment of the letter. We replied that it is our policy that substantive interpretations be made publicly available but informed you that we would be willing to delete all identifying references to you and your company. You replied that this was agreeable to you. However because this headlamp is the subject of SAE Technical paper 870064 Development of MR (Multi- Reflector Headlamp) and was discussed at SAE meetings in February 1987, Stanley has waived all considerations of confidentiality through its public disclosure of the matter. Consequently, this letter will be made publicly available.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3783 Open Mr. William R. Fink, President, Isis Imports, Ltd., P.O. Box 2290, US Custom House, San Francisco, CA 94126; Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 US Custom House San Francisco CA 94126; CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dear Mr. Fink: This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1983 requestin confidential treatment for information which was submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with statements of compliance and which pertained to vehicles imported by Isis Imports, Ltd. into the United States. In telephone conversations with Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, you indicated that you had no object to the release of HS Forms 189. You requested, however, that submitted drawings, diagrams, specifications and photographs showing the methods and extent of modifications made to Morgan vehicles be treated confidentially by this agency. After carefully reviewing the submitted materials and your justifications I have decided to grant your request in part and deny it in part.; All submitted materials will be afforded confidential treatment wit the exception of the photographs. NHTSA does not believe that their release will cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. In order to determine whether release of information will cause such harm, courts consider 'how valuable the information will be to the requesting competitors and how much this gain will damage the submitter.' Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle, 662 F. 2d 45, 51 (D.C. Cir. 1981).; You indicate that a presumption has been established by 49 CFR Part 51 with respect to blueprints and engineering drawings containing process of production data where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints or engineering drawings except after significant reverse engineering. This case determination, however, pertains only to blueprints and engineering drawings, it cannot be interpreted to apply to photographs. Additionally, release of the photographs will not be very valuable to the requesting competitor, and will therefore not cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. Since accompanying diagrams, text and other information will remain confidential, significant reverse engineering will still be required to determine the methods and extent of modifications necessary to bring Morgan vehicles into compliance with Federal standards.; If you wish to submit additional justification explaining why Isis i entitled to confidential treatment for the photographs you must do so within 10 days of your receipt of this letter. At the end of that period, they will be made publicly available. I will notify appropriate agency personnel of this decision, and they will treat your submissions accordingly.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2686 Open Mr. B. E. Clapson, Technical Director, Avon Tyres Limited, Bath Road, Melksham, Wiltshire SN12 8AA, England; Mr. B. E. Clapson Technical Director Avon Tyres Limited Bath Road Melksham Wiltshire SN12 8AA England; Dear Mr. Clapson: Your petition of September 28, 1977, for an inconsequentialit determination has been forwarded to this office for reply.; The 'noncompliance' in question is the failure of Avon Tyres to provid correct spacing between the symbol DOT and the alphanumeric code on certain tires. This requirement is imposed by 49 CFR 574.5. In addition S4.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 requires that each tire 'shall be labelled with the ... brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer in the manner specified in Part 574'. The requirement in question is primarily one of information rather than one of safety performance, and we therefore choose to regard the incorrect spacing as a noncompliance with Part 574.; A manufacturer's obligation to notify and remedy arises only upon th discovery of a safety-related defect, or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore Avon's failure to correctly space the information required by Part 574 is neither a safety-related defect nor a noncompliance with a safety standard, and it has no obligation to notify and remedy. Since Avon's petition is moot, it will not be considered.; No corrective action is required for the tires in question. We not Avon's assurances of future conformance and we will close our files without imposing a civil penalty for the company's technical violation of Part 574.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Deputy 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.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3771 Open The Honorable Robert A. Young, Member of Congress, 4150 Cypress Road, St. Ann, MO 63074; The Honorable Robert A. Young Member of Congress 4150 Cypress Road St. Ann MO 63074; Dear Mr. Young: Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the potentia hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the use of opaque glass in automobiles. Through the exercise of its motor vehicle safety authority, the agency has addressed a part of this potential problem. However, given the limitations on the agency's authority, additional State action is needed to eliminate this potential problem.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, th agency has issued 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 resistances. The specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; In past interpretation letters, the agency has said that solar film an other materials used to make windows opaque 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 of abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to the first 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.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter th vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting or other film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not the installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the 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 to comply with a Federal safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a tinting or other film on a vehicle for an owner if that action would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance performance of the vehicle's glazing. Violation of the render inoperative provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; State law, rather than Federal law, governs the operational use o vehicles by their owners. Thus, it is up to the States to preclude owners from applying tinting or other films to their vehicle windows. A number of States have already adopted such laws. The agency would be glad to provide technical assistance on glazing requirements to the appropriate Missouri highway safety officials working on this problem.; I hope this explains the agency's authority to address the potentia problems posed by tinting and other films. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed
ID: aiam2421 Open Mr. M. J. Denholm, Director of Engineering, Power Controls Division, Midland-Ross Corporation, 490 South Chestnut Street, Owosso, MI 48867; Mr. M. J. Denholm Director of Engineering Power Controls Division Midland-Ross Corporation 490 South Chestnut Street Owosso MI 48867; Dear Mr. Denholm: This responds to Midland-Ross' September 30, 1976, question whether th 'method' specified by Compliance Testing, Inc., in its December 8, 1975, Technical Proposal for Solicitation NHTSA-6-A212 is consistent with the laboratory procedure contemplated by the NHTSA for its test contractors in evaluating the compliance of air-braked vehicles with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The NHTSA laboratory procedure for compliance contractors in the case of Standard No. 121 states in relevant part:; >>>PROCEDURE: A. Physically locate check valve or equivalent device. B. Following manufacturer's recommendation, check the check valve o equivalent device for proper function without disconnecting any air line or fitting. Describe method and technique used.<<<; The Compliance Testing, Inc. (CTI) solicitation was evaluated alon with other proposals and has been accepted by the NHTSA. The 'method' set forth by CTI as its intended course of action in evaluating the compliance of valves in accordance with the requirements of S5.1.2.3 will not appear in the manual produced for NHTSA compliance testing.; I would like to note in closing that this letter does not constitute a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 121. Although the laboratory procedure sets forth the method by which contractors satisfy NHTSA contracts, it does not mean that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of the standard when tested according to its terms by other methods.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4074 Open Mr. Takeshi Tanuma, Chief Operating Office, Nissan Research & Development, Inc., 3995 Research Park Drive, P.O. Box 8650, Ann Arbor, MI 48104; Mr. Takeshi Tanuma Chief Operating Office Nissan Research & Development Inc. 3995 Research Park Drive P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor MI 48104; Dear Mr. Tanuma: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked two separate questions which are discussed in detail below.; First, you stated that you plan to introduce a 1987 carline in Marc 1986. This particular carline has been selected as one that will be subject to the requirements of Part 541. However, Part 541 does not become effective until April 24, 1986. You stated your belief that the introduction of the 1987 vehicles in that carline before the effective date of Part 541 means that none of the 1987 vehicles in that carline will be required to comply with Part 541. Your belief is correct.; As you noted, the effective date for Part 541 is April 24, 1986. Thi effective date means that Part 541 applies to all selected carlines beginning with the 1987 model year. However, the legislative history for Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.), which Title requires that Part 541 be promulgated, expressly states: 'The theft prevention standard cannot apply to a car in the middle of the model year.' H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 11 (1984).; For purposes of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, NHTSA believes tha the model year for a carline begins on the day on which a vehicle in that carline is introduced into commerce in the United States. Thus, if a 1987 model year vehicle in a carline is introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541, the 1987 model year for that carline would have begun prior to the effective date of the theft prevention standard. Obviously, the requirements of a standard do not apply before the effective date. Given the clear expression of Congressional intent that this theft prevention standard cannot apply to a carline in the middle of its model year, NHTSA concludes that a 1987 model year version of a carline introduced into commerce before the effective date of the theft prevention standard is not subject to the requirements of the theft prevention standard for the 1987 model year. That selected carline would, of course, be subject to Part 541 in the 1988 and subsequent model years.; Second, you stated that Nissan plans to affix a metal plate to th engines and transmissions of carlines selected for coverage under Part 541. You asked whether such a metal plate would appear to comply with the requirements of S541.5(d)(1).; You are correct in assuming that all markings which are affixed to part, whether by means of adhesive, special screws, rivets, or welding, are considered 'labels' and must satisfy the requirements of S541.5(d)(1). However, section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act 915 U.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or certify that a vehicle or method of marking complies with the theft prevention standard.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3803 Open Mr. Barry V. Davis, Vice President, Proto-Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 871, Pembroke, MA 02359; Mr. Barry V. Davis Vice President Proto-Systems Inc. P.O. Box 871 Pembroke MA 02359; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1983, with respect t the 'Headlight Kit' which you manufacture as 'an aftermarket add-on headlamp concealment device for the Camaro.' You have stated that it will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by Chevrolet dealers as a new car option. You have asked whether the product requires certification under Safety Standard No. 112, and, if so, how may it be included in your packaging and promotional material. If you are not required to certify, you would like to know if you may use the DOT symbol and the phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' on your packaging.; We have two types of safety standards: those that vehicles must meet and those that individual equipment items must meet. Safety Standard No. 112, Headlamp Concealment Devices, is an example of the former, when equipped with a headlamp concealment device, a vehicle must meet certain performance requirements. The vehicle must meet these requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and be certified as meeting the requirements. Certification of compliance with the vehicle safety standards is provided by the vehicle manufacturer, however, if the vehicles is altered before its sale, in more than a minor way, the alterer must provide an additional certification identifying himself as a modifier and that the vehicle as modified continues to meet the standards. Assuming that Chevrolet dealers perform the modification, it is they, not you, who must apply the alterer's label. The alterer's certification requirements are contained in 49 CFR Section 567.7.; Once a vehicle has been sold, no alterer's certification is required but the party performing the alterations is required to insure that he is not 'rendering inoperative in whole or in part' the headlighting system. We would interpret this to mean that if the concealment system's performance were not the equivalent of that obtainable under Standard No. 112 a violation might exist. The prohibition is established by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the prohibition does not preclude the vehicle owner from himself making any modification he chooses (subject, of course, to local law).; This means that regardless of whether your system is sold to new ca dealers or to retail stores in the aftermarket your company has no certification responsibility. Thus, the use of a DOT symbol would be improper and could even be viewed as technically false and misleading under Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, for which a civil penalty might be imposed. The phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' is also inaccurate. However, if your tests and other date clearly indicate that a Camaro would meet Standard No. 112 with the system in place, we would not object to your including a qualifying phrase such as 'Vehicle can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 if system is installed in accordance with instructions.' That would afford a basis upon which the new car dealer could rely in affixing his alterer's label, and would reassure an after-sale modifier that he was not violating the Act.; I hope that this has been helpful to you. For your information, enclose copies of Standard No. 112, 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and the Act.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3802 Open Mr. Barry M. Davis, Vice President, Proto-Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 871, Pembroke, Massachusetts 02359; Mr. Barry M. Davis Vice President Proto-Systems Inc. P.O. Box 871 Pembroke Massachusetts 02359; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1983, with respect t the 'Headlight Kit' which you manufacture as ' an aftermarket add-on headlamp concealment device for the Camaro.' You have stated that it will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by Chevrolet dealers as a new car option. You have asked whether the product requires certification under Safety Standard No. 112 and, if so how may it be included in your packaging and promotional material. If you are not required to certify, you would like to know if you may use the DOT symbol and the phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' on your packaging.; We have two types of safety standards: those that vehicles must meet and those that individual equipment items must meet. Safety Standard No. 112, Headlamp Concealment Devices, is an example of the former, when equipped with a headlamp concealment device, a vehicle must meet certain performance requirements. The vehicle must meet these requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and be certified as meeting the requirements. Certification of compliance with the vehicle safety standards is provided by the vehicle manufacturer, however, if the vehicle is altered before its sale, in more than a minor way, the alterer must provide an additional certification identifying himself as a modifier and that the vehicle as modified continues to meet the standards. Assuming that Chevrolet dealers perform the modification, it is they, not you who must apply the alterer's label. The alterer's certification requirements are contained in 49 CFR Section 567.7.; Once a vehicle has been sold, no alterer's certification is required but the party performing the alterations is required to insure that he is not rendering inoperative in whole or in part' the headlight system. We would interpret this to mean that if the concealment system's performance were not the equivalent of that obtainable under Standard No. 112 a violation might exist. This prohibition is established by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the prohibition does not preclude the vehicle owner from himself making any modification he chooses (subject, of course, to local law).; This means that regardless of whether your system is sold to new ca dealers or to retail stores in the aftermarket your company has no certification responsibility. Thus, the use of a DOT symbol would be improper and could even be viewed a technically false and misleading under Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, for which a civil penalty might be imposed. The phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' is also inaccurate. However, if your tests and other data clearly indicate that a Camaro would meet Standard No. 112 with the system in place, we would not object to your including a qualifying phrase such as 'Vehicle can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 if system is installed in accordance with instructions.' That would afford a basis upon which the new car dealer could rely in affixing his alterer's label, and would reassure an after-sale modifier that he was not violating the Act.; I hope that this has been helpful to you. For your information, enclose copies of Standard No. 112, 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and the Act.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4799 Open Mr. William D. Rogers President SportsCar America, Inc. 400 South Elliott Road Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514; Mr. William D. Rogers President SportsCar America Inc. 400 South Elliott Road Chapel Hill N.C. 27514; "Dear Mr. Rogers: We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCa America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below. SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an 'Exclusive Distribution Agreement' ('the Agreement') with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a prototype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards. The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the 'Manufacturer.' Under Section l of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with 'those modifications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation' of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CFR Part 567, the Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles. Although you identify SportsCar America as the 'distribution agent', we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale in the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition. Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it would like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar figure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is available to the agency in its determination. If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";
ID: aiam2521 Open Mr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Engineering, 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, CO 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Engineering 5990 N. Washington Street Denver CO 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTS regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, Certification and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.; As you are aware, Part 567 of our regulations requires a statement b the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (S 567.4(g)(4)). The term 'GAWR' is defined in S 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire- ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.; Standard No. 120 specifies that 'each vehicle . . . shall be equippe with tires that meet specified requirements ' (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.; In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery o vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.; With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty ne trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that (sic) necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and S 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4283 Open Mr. T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Control Department, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, with respect to new headlamp and aiming adaptor design. The lens of the headlamp will be titled 60 degrees from vertical. Although this is too extreme an angle for use of mechanical aimers for headlamps, you have developed an adaptor for use with the aimer whereby the new headlamp may be mechanically aimed. You have asked whether mechanical aim using the new adaptor is permissible.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does prescribe the type of aimers to be used with replaceable bulb headlamps, but not the adapters. As you have noted, the standard does require such headlamps to be capable of mechanical aim by incorporating on the lens face three pads which meet the requirements of the standard's Figure 4. You have informed us that your headlamp design complies with this requirement, and furthermore meets the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.; However, there are some practical considerations that are important i you intend to market this headlamp. Although providing an aimer adaptor is not required by Standard 108, no adapters for your unique lamp have been provided to service facilities. The only adaptor which exist today are those designed to accommodate sealed beam headlamps, and replaceable bulb headlamps with lens angles up to 50 degree for smaller lamps and 40 degrees for large ones. Neither of these can accommodate the lamp you have proposed.; In summary, the standard does not appear to preclude use of your ne designs, and although not specifically required by the standard, an adaptor should be provided as original vehicle equipment since suitable adapters do not exist in the service community.; Subsequent to August 4, we received your request for confidentia treatment of the letter. We replied that it is our policy that substantive interpretations be made publicly available but informed you that we would be willing to delete all identifying references to you and your company. You replied that this was agreeable to you. However because this headlamp is the subject of SAE Technical paper 870064 Development of MR (Multi- Reflector Headlamp) and was discussed at SAE meetings in February 1987, Stanley has waived all considerations of confidentiality through its public disclosure of the matter. Consequently, this letter will be made publicly available.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3783 Open Mr. William R. Fink, President, Isis Imports, Ltd., P.O. Box 2290, US Custom House, San Francisco, CA 94126; Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 US Custom House San Francisco CA 94126; CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dear Mr. Fink: This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1983 requestin confidential treatment for information which was submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with statements of compliance and which pertained to vehicles imported by Isis Imports, Ltd. into the United States. In telephone conversations with Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, you indicated that you had no object to the release of HS Forms 189. You requested, however, that submitted drawings, diagrams, specifications and photographs showing the methods and extent of modifications made to Morgan vehicles be treated confidentially by this agency. After carefully reviewing the submitted materials and your justifications I have decided to grant your request in part and deny it in part.; All submitted materials will be afforded confidential treatment wit the exception of the photographs. NHTSA does not believe that their release will cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. In order to determine whether release of information will cause such harm, courts consider 'how valuable the information will be to the requesting competitors and how much this gain will damage the submitter.' Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle, 662 F. 2d 45, 51 (D.C. Cir. 1981).; You indicate that a presumption has been established by 49 CFR Part 51 with respect to blueprints and engineering drawings containing process of production data where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints or engineering drawings except after significant reverse engineering. This case determination, however, pertains only to blueprints and engineering drawings, it cannot be interpreted to apply to photographs. Additionally, release of the photographs will not be very valuable to the requesting competitor, and will therefore not cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. Since accompanying diagrams, text and other information will remain confidential, significant reverse engineering will still be required to determine the methods and extent of modifications necessary to bring Morgan vehicles into compliance with Federal standards.; If you wish to submit additional justification explaining why Isis i entitled to confidential treatment for the photographs you must do so within 10 days of your receipt of this letter. At the end of that period, they will be made publicly available. I will notify appropriate agency personnel of this decision, and they will treat your submissions accordingly.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2686 Open Mr. B. E. Clapson, Technical Director, Avon Tyres Limited, Bath Road, Melksham, Wiltshire SN12 8AA, England; Mr. B. E. Clapson Technical Director Avon Tyres Limited Bath Road Melksham Wiltshire SN12 8AA England; Dear Mr. Clapson: Your petition of September 28, 1977, for an inconsequentialit determination has been forwarded to this office for reply.; The 'noncompliance' in question is the failure of Avon Tyres to provid correct spacing between the symbol DOT and the alphanumeric code on certain tires. This requirement is imposed by 49 CFR 574.5. In addition S4.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 requires that each tire 'shall be labelled with the ... brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer in the manner specified in Part 574'. The requirement in question is primarily one of information rather than one of safety performance, and we therefore choose to regard the incorrect spacing as a noncompliance with Part 574.; A manufacturer's obligation to notify and remedy arises only upon th discovery of a safety-related defect, or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore Avon's failure to correctly space the information required by Part 574 is neither a safety-related defect nor a noncompliance with a safety standard, and it has no obligation to notify and remedy. Since Avon's petition is moot, it will not be considered.; No corrective action is required for the tires in question. We not Avon's assurances of future conformance and we will close our files without imposing a civil penalty for the company's technical violation of Part 574.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Deputy Chief Counsel

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam3771

ID: aiam2421

ID: aiam4074

ID: aiam3803

ID: aiam3802

ID: aiam4799

ID: aiam2521

ID: aiam4283

ID: aiam3783

ID: aiam2686

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?