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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam2488OpenMr. D. J. Henry, Executive Vice President, Meyer Products, Inc., 18513 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44112; Mr. D. J. Henry Executive Vice President Meyer Products Inc. 18513 Euclid Avenue Cleveland OH 44112; Dear Mr. Henry: This is in response to your November 16, 1976, letter concerning th removal of snow plow assemblies prior to testing motor vehicles for conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*.; You have pointed out that a snow plow assembly includes component other than the part that actually contacts and moves the snow. You have requested confirmation of your interpretation that 'no part of the snow plow assembly, including the mounting components, was to be attached to a vehicle for purposes of [compliance testing] ...'; That interpretation is incorrect. The presence or absence of snow plo components on a vehicle during compliance testing depends on whether the components are included in the vehicle's 'unloaded vehicle weight'. As the July 16, 1976, letter from Mr. Robert Carter of this agency to the Jeep Corporation indicates, unloaded vehicle weight includes the weight of accessories that are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. The statement in that letter that 'snow plows' would be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing can be amplified as follows: 1) A snow plow, i.e., the component of a snow plow assembly that actually contacts and moves the snow, will be removed. 2) Those other components of a snow plow assembly that, like the snow plow itself, are ordinarily removed when not in use will also be removed. 3) Those components which are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when not in use will not be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing. The agency will abide by a manufacturer's good faith categorization of accessories and components of accessories.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1477OpenMr. Edward A. Green, President Henke Manufacturing Corporation, Janesville, IA 50647; Mr. Edward A. Green President Henke Manufacturing Corporation Janesville IA 50647; Dear Mr. Green: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1974, asking severa questions regarding the sale of snow plows and related equipment and their installation on vehicles. Your questions are restated below, followed by our responses:; 1. Question A: 'When we sell a plow, lift frame, lights and brackets t a dealer, do we have to report to you what dealers we sold light kits. Lights meet the code. Yes or no.'; No. The sale of lighting equipment to a dealer, without any concurren installation on a vehicle, does not give rise to any reporting or other requirements.; Question B: 'When we receive an order for a snow plow and no light ki is ordered, what is our responsibility in this case: We assume the dealer furnishes his own light kit.'; As long as you do not install the plow no requirements apply. 2. 'We mount a lift frame for a county or city and they want to moun their own lights. We instruct them that lights are mandatory before they affix the plow. The lift frame only does not affect the present requirement for lights. Are we violating the law and what must we do?; The addition of a lift frame to a completed vehicle (to which 'readily-attachable' plow will later be added) would make you a vehicle alterer and subject to section 567.8 of the Certification regulations. The alterer label should take into account the weight of a plow. As lights may be considered to be readily attachable, you may deliver the vehicle to the county without the additional lights. The county must install them, however, and you should obtain written assurance that it will do so. If the lights were not installed by the user, you would be responsible for a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)). Your certification as an alterer would also be invalid, as the altered vehicle would not conform to all applicable standards.; 3. 'Henke receives a truck with a dump box and no certification labe and nothing noted on incomplete registration. We certified the truck and informed the county that they should get the dealer mounting the box to put an addendum to the incomplete vehicle form to the effect that he mounted the box. Is this correct?; Yes, if in fact the vehicle conforms to applicable standards, and it weight ratings are correct, no, if it does not conform or its weight ratings are not correct. In completing and certifying a vehicle without complete documentation required under Part 568, you run the risk of having no 'due care' defense to a finding of nonconformity.; 'Henke receives a truck that has a final certification. We mount lif frame, wing and front hydraulic power system. The county wants to mount their own lights. Do we have to put on an addendum sticker? We warn them regarding light requirements when plow is mounted.'; Section 577.7 (sic) of the Certification regulations requires a alterer label when non- readily-attachable components, or any components whose installation modifies the stated weight ratings, are installed. We assume the equipment you mount in this case falls within one if not both of these categories, and an alterer label is therefore required. Your failure to install lights has the same effect here as in our answer to question 2.; 5. 'We receive a truck with a box capacity when loaded with sand whic is more than the GVWR rating and we mount snow plow lift frame and wing. We instruct the customer to mount the plow and wing and add their normal ballast and take the truck to a scale and trim the load not to exceed the axle ratings as stated on the certification label. Our equipment does not overload any axle. Do we have any further liability in regard to the overloading of axles?'; As a vehicle alterer, you are required to recertify the vehicle, an modify its weight ratings if necessary, following the alterations you perform. The gross vehicle weight rating you establish must be based on the vehicle's rated cargo load. Normally, manufacturers are not required to determine what specific loads a vehicle they certify may carry, and are certainly not responsible for overloading by users. However, where the manufacturer (or alterer as the case may be) actually knows that a vehicle he certified is being purchased to carry primarily a particular commodity, the rated cargo load on which he bases his ratings should not be less than what he can reasonably expect the user to consider a 'full load' of that commodity. If he knows that a normal full load of sand, for example, to be carried in that truck will weigh 5 tons, we would consider it false and misleading to rate the cargo load at 4 tons to avoid having to use heavier-duty running gear. In the example you describe, the answer would depend on what you (the manufacturer) know, or can reasonably be expected to know, about how the plow trucks are likely to be loaded. A warning to the buyer not to exceed the rated cargo load or the weight ratings, in that case, would not be sufficient if it were reasonable to expect that the vehicles would, in practice, exceed these ratings at normal full load despite the warning.; With respect to your request for a code number, no final requirement have been issued on this matter, and no number is presently required.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4675OpenThe Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino U. S. House of Representatives 2332 Rayburn Building Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino U. S. House of Representatives 2332 Rayburn Building Washington D.C. 20515; "Dear Mr. Lagomarsino: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinne on behalf of your constituent, Mike Dunn. You inquired about a school bus passenger restraining device marketed by Mr. Dunn. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received an inquiry concerning a similar device in 1988. A copy of our responses, which detail the requirements applicable to such a device, are enclosed. I will summarize those requirements below. The device being marketed by your constituent, a 'safety bar' for school bus passengers, consists of a padded metal bar which is attached to the seat back of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the safety bar. The bar is hinged to swing up to allow entry and exit of the occupants. The hinge mechanism also allows the bar to drop slightly from its lowered position upon impact in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of abdominal injury. The device operates much like the passenger restraint bars found on certain amusement park rides. As explained by the enclosed letters, federal law does not prohibit the installation of your constituent's product on school buses as long its installation and use would not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the safety bars are to be installed in any new school bus, the manufacturer of the bus would have to certify that the bus with the safety bars installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.222). As the enclosed letters explain, the use of the safety bar would not obviate the need for a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). That standard requires that such vehicles be equipped with either safety belts or automatic restraints at all passenger seating positions. In addition, as explained in the enclosed letters and information sheet, the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1027OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., Suite 406, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. David J. Humphreys Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. Suite 406 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of February 2, 1973, in which you as whether a vehicle designed to provide living accommodations for persons, but also designed to carry more than 10 persons, will be considered a motor home (a multipurpose passenger vehicle) or a bus under the motor vehicle safety standards. You question arises in the context of whether such a vehicle must comply with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.; Based on the definitions of these vehicle types in Part 571 of Titl 49, Code of Federal Regulations, we would consider this vehicle to be a bus. A multipurpose passenger vehicle, in which category a motor home falls (49 CFR 571.205), is limited to being designed to carry 10 persons or less. As the vehicle in question is designed to carry more than 10 persons, it must, under these definitions, be considered a bus.; Moreover, we do not believe there is a legitimate basis to exempt thi vehicle from Standard No. 217. That standard is intended to require vehicles designed to carry more than 10 persons to have specific provisions for the emergency escape of passengers. This purpose is not offset in cases where the vehicle simultaneously provides living accommodations.; We believe this conclusion to be consistent with the exemption provide in Standard 217 for limousines and station wagons. These vehicles, which like the vehicle in question are ordinarily vehicle types other than buses, are exempt because sufficient means of emergency escape are otherwise available. There is no indication that such is the case in the vehicle which is the subject of your letter.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4225OpenThe Honorable Douglas Applegate, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Douglas Applegate U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Applegate: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from you constituent, Mr. Thomas Ash of East Liverpool, who asked about our school bus definition. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.; Mr. Ash explained in his letter to you that Ohio considers vehicle carrying 10 or more student passengers as school buses. He stated that because a vehicle carrying 9 or fewer passengers is not a 'school bus' under state law, it may be operated by staff members and advisors who do not have the special qualifications required by the state for school bus drivers. Since the East Liverpool Board of Education would like to use 15-passenger vans operated by those staff members and advisors to carry school children to school related events, it is interested in changing Ohio's definition of a school bus to exclude such vans. Because the state definition of a school bus adopts the Federal definition of that term, Mr. Ash asks us to explain the reasons for our school bus definition.; The definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. I accordance with Congress's mandate in the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Admendment (sic) of 1974, NHTSA has issued safety standards for all new school buses. In the Act, Congress mandated that the safety standards apply to all school buses that are designed to carry more than 10 passengers to ensure that all vehicles likely to be significantly used for student transportation would be subject to comprehensive safety standards.; The East Liverpool City Schools can purchase new 15-passenger vans conforming to our standards, for use in transporting its pupils to school-related events. however, under the Act and our safety standards, a dealer selling a new 15-passenger van to a school district for the purpose of carrying children to and from school or on school-related trips, must ensure that the vehicle conforms to all of our school bus safety standards.; Our schoolbus safety standards apply only to the manufacture and sal of new schoolbuses and do not regulate issues of vehicle operation such as driver training or qualifications. The authority to govern the operation of vehicles rests with the State. NHTSA has issued guidelines to the States to assist them in setting up their own highway safety programs. Ohio's decision to require all drivers of school buses to have special training or a special license is consistent with the recommendations we have issued on pupil transportation safety. Those recommendations are found in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. I want to emphasize that the States are not required to follow our guidelines and can modify them to meet their pupil transportation needs.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed |
|
ID: aiam0266OpenMr. B. Borisoff, Consulting Engineer, 5403 Blanco Avenue, Woodland Hills, CA 91364; Mr. B. Borisoff Consulting Engineer 5403 Blanco Avenue Woodland Hills CA 91364; Dear Mr. Borisoff: Reference is made to your letter of October 14, 1970 to Secretary Volp regarding our Consumer Information publication.; Concerning your comments on stopping distance, the wording used on pag 4 is the exact wording of this regulation. The category 'Stopping distance in feet with emergency brakes (partial service brake system)' is a generalization of the regulatory wording meant to convey the sense of this requirement to a consumer who may have no engineering background. The paragraph on page 193 paraphrases the regulatory wording. The title 'Partial Failure on One System' is, again, meant to convey the meaning to an otherwise uninformed consumer. I trust this clarifies the situation for you.; The reason many motorcycles are not listed is the fact that the dat was not received in time to be included in the book. I am enclosing copies of the data available for U.S. made motorcycles as you requested.; Volume 2, covering the 1971 makes and models will be availabl approximately November 15, 1970 and can be obtained from the Government Printing Office at a cost of $2.00. In addition two (2) new Consumer Aid publications entitled 'BRAKES - A Comparison of Braking Performance for 1971 Passenger Cars' and 'TIRES - A Comparison of Tire Reserve Load for 1971 Passenger Cars' will also be available at a cost of $.40 each.; Many thanks for your kind words and your interest in our motor vehicl safety program.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5064OpenJess R. Thurman 13112 Old State Road Evansville, IN 47711; Jess R. Thurman 13112 Old State Road Evansville IN 47711; "Dear Mr. Thurman: This responds to your letter of October 1, 199 requesting information on whether certain modifications can be made to a van to make room for a wheelchair to enter the vehicle. You explained that you currently own a 1983 Ford van with a lift. The passenger seats behind the front seats were moved back in your 1983 van to make room for the wheelchair lift. You are currently trying to purchase a new Ford van with the same modifications but have been told that federal law no longer permits moving seats or safety belts. As explained below, there is no federal requirement that expressly prohibits moving seats or safety belts, provided that the relocated seats and belts continue to comply with the applicable safety standards. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if a vehicle were originally manufactured in the manner you have described, the manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. If some party were to modify a vehicle along the lines described in your letter before the vehicle's first sale to a consumer like yourself, that party would be required to leave the original manufacturer's certification in place and add its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. Moving the rear seats and the seat belts for those seats could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Based upon the information in your letter, it appears that the vehicle you wish to have modified would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) for purposes of NHTSA's regulations. Standard No. 208 requires an MPV to have a lap/shoulder belt at every rear outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other rear seating position. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that modifies a van for you along the lines described in your letter after you have purchased the van would be subject to the requirement of the Safety Act (at 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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. Since the rear seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design installed in the van in compliance with applicable safety standards, this section prohibits any of the named commercial entities from making any modification or repair to the rear seats and/or their accompanying safety belts if such modification or repair would cause the vehicle no longer to comply with an applicable safety standard. As you can see, there is nothing in Federal law that prohibits persons from moving rear seats and their accompanying safety belts. Instead, Federal law requires that modifications to a van that include moving the rear seats and the safety belts be done in such a way that the repositioned seats and safety belts continue to provide the safety protection mandated by the safety standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information on this matter, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0636OpenMr. Donald J. Zach, Universal Oil Products Company, Bostrom Division, 133 West Oregon Street, Milwaukee, WI 53201; Mr. Donald J. Zach Universal Oil Products Company Bostrom Division 133 West Oregon Street Milwaukee WI 53201; Dear Mr. Zach: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1972, in which you aske several questions concerning the effects of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 on a type of center console seat manufactured by your company.; Before answering your specific questions about the standard, I want t clear up what seems to be a misconception in your letter about the obligations created by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act grants us authority to issue safety standards and provides, in Section 108(a), that no person shall; >>>manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or delive for introduction in interstate commerce . . .any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect. . .unless it is in conformity with such standard.<<<; A dealer or distributor of a vehicle manufactured after the effectiv date of an applicable standard is thus obligated to maintain the vehicle in conformity with the standard, even though he might be in the 'after-market' according to your terminology.; To answer your specific questions: >>>1. A seat installed on or after January 1, 1972, on a truc manufactured before January 1, 1972, will not have to conform to the standard. A truck manufactured before January 1, 1972, would not have had to conform on the date of its manufacture. Since the standard applies only to the vehicle and not to the equipment separately, the date of the vehicle's manufacture is controlling.; 2 and 3. A seat installed on a truck manufactured on or after Januar 1, 1972, will have to conform to the standard, except that a person who has purchased a truck for his own use and not for resale may have a seat installed after purchase even though the seat does not conform. The standard does not regulate seats as a separate item of equipment and therefore does not expressly prohibit their sale and installation in this fashion.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3919OpenMr. D. W. A. Bennett, Managing Director, Pacific Helmets (N.Z.) Ltd., P.O. Box 866, Wanganui, New Zealand; Mr. D. W. A. Bennett Managing Director Pacific Helmets (N.Z.) Ltd. P.O. Box 866 Wanganui New Zealand; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to your inquiry about ventilation holes in the front o motorcycle helmets currently being manufactured by other companies. You give the location of these ventilation holes as being between the reference plane and the test line, one inch above that plane, and ask whether these holes are permitted under Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; Standard No. 218 requires, in paragraph S5.4, that: 'Each helmet shal have a protective surface of continuous contour at all points on or above the test line described in S6.1.3.' In paragraph S6.1.3, this test line is required to be drawn one inch above the reference plane in the frontal portion of the helmet. The continuous contour requirement is important because both the impact attenuation and penetration tests in the standard are performed on the helmet area above the test line. This helmet test area is the shaded area illustrated in Figure 2 of Standard No. 218. Therefore, any ventilation holes located between the reference plane and the test line in the front portion of a helmet would be permitted under the standard, as long as they are not located on or above the test line.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1924OpenHonorable Nelson A. Rockefeller, President of the Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Nelson A. Rockefeller President of the Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Mr. President: The purpose of this letter is to inform the Committees on Commerce an on Public Works of recent activities and decisions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration relating to the establishment of a Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standard (UTQGS). We are pleased to announce that this standard, required by section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1423), was promulgated on May 20, 1975 (copy enclosed). The rule provides for grading tires in three areas: treadwear, traction, and temperature performance. I believe it will provide the consumer with the information he needs to determine which tire is the best value for him, considering his needs and driving habits.; As I am sure you are aware, we have had our share of problems i developing this rule. It had been our original intention to utilize a control tire against which other tires would be compared. In May of 1974, due to technical problems and time constraints imposed by the court in *Nash* v. *Brinegar*, Civil Action No. 17, D.C. (1974), the decision was made to attempt to utilize a control surface rather than a control tire. In order to investigate the feasibility of this approach, a section of runway at Goodfellow AFB, in San Angelo, Texas, was repaved, to provide a research control surface. At the outset of the research project the question had been raised regarding the applicability of section 301 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (which provides for specific approval by the above mentioned Committees of the Senate and their counterparts in the House, before constructing facilities for testing in traffic safety) to the construction of the control surfaces. It was then determined that since the action was a short-term effort, and in the nature of a feasibility study, section 301 was not applicable. This research project was successful and forms the basis of the rule.; We have recently obligated a sum of $75,000, in addition to th approximately $750,000 expended for the earlier research project (including $165,000 for the control surface), for the purpose of altering the control surfaces and nearby roadway to enable manufacturers to use these surfaces to meet the requirements of complying with the rule.; Even though the associated conversion costs were less than $100,000, w recognized that alterations to the surfaces in late FY 1976 and FY 1977 will cause total expenditures to rise above that level. Therefore, prior to proceeding with the recent site conversion effort, we focused again on the issue of the applicability of section 301. We determined that the section is inapplicable because the purpose of the control surface is to facilitate testing in a matter which is first and foremost consumer information rather than traffic safety, for, as stated in section 203 of the Act, UTQGS is established 'in order to assist the consumer to make an informed choice in the purchase of motor vehicle tires . . . .'; We will continue to keep you posted on the progress of the UTQGS a manufacturers begin testing. We expect to be able to provide the consumer with information in the near future which will enable him to make the best use of his tire dollars.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
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.