NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam2085OpenMr. C.D. McCarty, the B.F. Goodrich Company, 500 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44318; Mr. C.D. McCarty the B.F. Goodrich Company 500 South Main Street Akron Ohio 44318; Dear Mr. McCarty: This is in response to your August 30, 1975, letter concerning th Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to tires which the manufacturer expects to be used on both passenger cars and trailers.; >>>S2. of Standard No. 109 specifies: This standard applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger car manufactured after 1948...; Similarly, S3. of Standard No. 119 specifies: This standard applies to new pneumatic tires designed for highway us on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, *trailers* and motorcycles manufactured after 1948... (emphasis added)<<<; These standards are mutually exclusive. Therefore, dual marking indicating compliance with the performance requirements of each are not permitted. A tire whose predominant contemplated use is in passenger cars is subject to Standard No. 109, even if the manufacturer knows it will also be marketed as a trailer tire. The choice of standard to which the tire will be certified should be made by the manufacturer. The NHTSA will accept a manufacturer's good faith determination of the applicable standard. You should note that if the tire is certified as conforming with Standard No. 119, its use as original equipment on passenger cars is prohibited by Standard No. 110. (The proposed Standard No. 120, however, would permit the use of passenger car tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, subject to a 10 percent load rating correction factor.); Please note further that a tire which is subject to Standard No. 10 must be of a size designation listed in Appendix A of that standard. Conversely, any tire labeled with a size designation which is listed in that appendix is subject to Standard No. 109.; The final paragraph of your letter discussed 'certain types and classe of equipment [determined by the NHTSA to be] non-trailers by definition.' You appear to be referring to vehicles which are not 'trailers' because they are not 'motor vehicles' or items of 'motor vehicle equipment' as the latter terms are defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. No Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to units which are neither motor vehicles nor motor vehicle equipment. The manufacturers of such unit may equip them with tires of their choice.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2117OpenHonorable Jamie L. Whitten, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; Honorable Jamie L. Whitten House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Mr. Whitten: This is in further reply to your letter of October 3, 1975, for Mr Charles Russel of WJLJ, regarding tire failures on ambulances in Tupelo, Mississippi.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.109, 49 CFR 571.109, which specifies performance and labeling requirements for new tires for use on passenger cars. Among the labeling requirements is that such tires must have their load ratings molded into or onto both sidewalls. Standard No. 119, 40 CFR 571.119, establishes similar requirements for new tires for use on trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). The choice of standard applicable to a given tire depends on that tire's primary intended use. These standards apply to tires, and not to vehicles.; To ensure that new vehicles are equipped with proper tires, the NHTS has also issued Standard No. 110 for passenger cars and a proposed new Standard No. 120 that would apply to vehicles other than passenger cars. Briefly, Standard No. 110 requires each new passenger car to be equipped with tires which meet Standard No. 109 and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity, as evidenced by the load ratings found on the sidewalls. As proposed, Standard No. 120 would require MPV's (including ambulances) to be equipped with tires which meet either Standard No. 109 or No. 119, and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity. In the case of Standard 119 tires, sufficiency of load carrying capacity would be calculated directly from the tires' load ratings. In the case of Standard 109 (passenger car) tires mounted on an MPV, sufficiency would be determined by dividing the tire load ratings by a 110 percent correction factor before comparing these ratings with the vehicle's weight ratings. The use of passenger car tires on new ambulances would thus not be prohibited by the new standard, provided this load rating correction factor is applied. This provision would recognize an established practice which has not been found to present a safety hazard. Passenger car tires generally provide a softer, more comfortable ride than truck tires, because the latter operate at higher inflation pressures, and thus may even more desirable on ambulances, provided they are of adequate load carrying capacity. The NHTSA expects to issue Standard No. 120 in the near future.; For your convenience, I am enclosing copies of Standards Nos. 109, 110 119, and the proposed Standard No. 120.; Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr. |
|
ID: aiam2116OpenHonorable Jamie L. Whitten, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; Honorable Jamie L. Whitten House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Mr. Whitten: This is in further reply to your letter of October 3, 1975, for Mr Charles Russell of WJLJ,regarding tire failures on ambulances in Tupelo, Mississippi.; Pursuant to the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR 571.109, which specifies performance and labeling requirements for new tires for use on passenger cars. Among the labeling requirements is that such tires must have their load ratings molded into or onto both sidewalls. Standard No. 119, 49 CFR 571.119, establishes similar requirements for new tires for use on trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). The choice of standard applicable to a given tire depends on that tire's primary intended use. These standards apply to tires, and not to vehicles.; To ensure that new vehicles are equipped with proper tires, the NHTS has also issued Standard No. 110 for passenger cars and a proposed new Standard No. 120 that would apply to vehicles other than passenger cars. Briefly, Standard No. 110 requires each new passenger car to be equipped with tires which meet Standard No. 109 and which are sufficient load carrying capacity, as evidenced by the load ratings found on the sidewalls. As proposed, Standard No. 120 would require MPV's (including ambulances) to be equipped with tires which meet either Standard No. 109 or No. 119, and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity. In the case of Standard 119 tires, sufficiency of load carrying capacity would be calculated directly from the tires' load ratings. In the case of Standard 109 (passenger car) tires mounted on an MPV, sufficiency would be determined by dividing the tire load ratings by a 110 percent correction factor before comparing these ratings with the vehicle's weight ratings. The use of passenger car tires on new ambulances would thus not be prohibited by the new standard, provided this load rating correction factor is applied. This provision would recognize an established practice which has not been found to present a safety hazard. Passenger car tires generally provide a softer, more comfortable ride than truck tires, because the latter operate at a higher inflation pressures, and thus may even be more desirable on ambulances, provided they are of adequate load carrying capacity. The NHTSA expect to issue Standard No. 120 in the near future.; For your convenience, I am enclosing copies of Standards Nos. 109, 110 119, and the proposed Standard No. 120.; Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr. |
|
ID: aiam4115OpenMr. Robert P. Horbatt, President, Semperit Tire Company, 156 Ludlow Avenue, Northvale, NJ 07647; Mr. Robert P. Horbatt President Semperit Tire Company 156 Ludlow Avenue Northvale NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Horbatt: This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in whic you stated your interpretation of the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR S575.104, 'UTQGS'). You stated that your company is introducing a new all-season tire to the United States market, and that you would like to import the first six months' production without the UTQGS grades molded onto the sidewall of the tires, but with paper labels showing those grades. This course of action is expressly permitted by the UTQGS.; First, the UTQGS is applicable to all-season tires. Sectio 575.104(c)(1) specifies that the UTQGS does not apply to 'winter-type snow tires.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has explained that winter-type snow tires refers only to tires with a deep tread rubber and tread design which are inadvisable for year-round use on passenger automobiles. Since all-season tires are not 'winter-type snow tires,' they are subject to the requirements of the UTQGS. *See* 44 FR 30139, at 30140, May 24, 1979.; The requirement that the grades assigned under the UTQGS be permanentl molded onto one sidewall of each passenger car tire is set forth in 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(i)(A). However, that section reads: *'Except for a tire of a new tire line, manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line*, each tire shall be graded with the words, letters, symbols, and figures ... permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall....' A tire line introduced for the first time into the United States is considered a new tire line for the purposes of this section. Therefore, our UTQGS regulation does *not* require you to mold the assigned grades onto a sidewall of those tires manufactured within the first six months of production. Such tires are subject to the requirement that a paper label, showing the UTQGS grades assigned to the tire, be affixed to its tread surface (49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)), and that the grades assigned to those tires appear in the information furnished to prospective purchasers of the tires (49 CFR S575.6(c)).; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4113OpenMr. Robert P. Horbatt, President, Semperit Tire Company, 156 Ludlow Avenue, Northvale, NJ 07647; Mr. Robert P. Horbatt President Semperit Tire Company 156 Ludlow Avenue Northvale NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Horbatt: This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in whic you stated your interpretation of the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR S575.104, 'UTQGS'). You stated that your company is introducing a new all-season tire to the United States market, and that you would like to import the first six months' production without the UTQGS grades molded onto the sidewall of the tires, but with paper labels showing those grades. This course of action is expressly permitted by the UTQGS.; First, the UTQGS is applicable to all-season tires. Sectio 575.104(c)(1) specifies that the UTQGS does not apply to 'winter-type snow tires.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has explained that winter-type snow tires refers only to tires with a deep tread rubber and tread design which are inadvisable for year-round use on passenger automobiles. Since all-season tires are not 'winter-type snow tires,' they are subject to the requirements of the UTQGS. *See* 44 FR 30139, at 30140, May 24, 1979.; The requirement that the grades assigned under the UTQGS be permanentl molded onto one sidewall of each passenger car tire is set forth in 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(i)(A). However, that section reads:'*Except for a tire of a new tire line, manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line*, each tire shall be graded with the words, letters, symbols, and figures ... permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall....' A tire line introduced for the first time into the United States is considered a new tire line for the purposes of this section. Therefore, our UTQGS regulation does *not* require you to mold the assigned grades onto a sidewall of those tires manufactured within the first six months of production. Such tires are subject to the requirement that a paper label, showing the UTQGS grades assigned to the tire, be affixed to its tread surface (49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)), and that the grades assigned to those tires appear in the information furnished to prospective purchasers of the tires (49 CFR S575.6(c)).; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3330OpenMr. Kenneth W. Rix, Vice President, Great Plains Industries, Inc., 1711 Longfellow Lane, Wichita, KS 67207; Mr. Kenneth W. Rix Vice President Great Plains Industries Inc. 1711 Longfellow Lane Wichita KS 67207; Dear Mr. Rix: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1980, concerning a evaporative cooler you are considering manufacturing for use on motor vehicles. You explained that the unit would mount just outside the upper portion of the passenger window and would block approximately the upper 3 1/2 inches and protrude to the right of the drip rail approximately 10 inches. The following discussion answers your questions and outlines your responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*., a copy of which is enclosed).; You first asked whether your evaporative cooler would violate an Federal safety regulations. The agency has not issued and Federal motor vehicle safety standard directly establishing requirements for evaporative coolers. However, as explained below, installation of your cooler may be affected by the agency's proposed standard on direct fields of view. That proposal would prohibit certain obstructions in the driver's field of view. I have enclosed a copy of that notice of proposed rulemaking. (The agency does not plan to take final action on this proposal until early next year.); If the field of direct view standard is adopted, then installation o an evaporative cooler in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's sale to the first purchaser could be affected by section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, and the agency's certification regulation (49 CFR 567, a copy of which is enclosed). If a cooler is installed as an add-on item of motor vehicle equipment by a vehicle dealer prior to the vehicle's delivery to the first purchaser, then section 567.7 of the certification regulation would apply. That section provides that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle prior to its first purchase must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms to all applicable standards. Thus, a new vehicle would have to comply with the fields of view requirements with the cooler installed.; Whether or not your cooler is covered by a Federal safety standard, a a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you are required to comply with the provisions of the Act pertaining to safety-related defects (sections 151-159, 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). Thus, if your company learns of a defect relating to motor vehicle safety in its evaporative coolers, you would be required to notify this agency, as well as owners, purchasers or dealers of the equipment, concerning the defect and to remedy the defect without charge. Parts 573, 576, 577 and 579 of the agency's regulations (49 CFR 573, 576, 577 and 579) define in detail a manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to safety-related defects. I have enclosed copies of those regulations.; You also asked whether you must check each state code prior to sale o your evaporative cooler in that state, since some states may have regulations that are more restrictive than the Federal regulations. In the absence of a Federal standard directly affecting evaporative coolers, state regulations would govern the sale of your cooler. If there was a Federal standard affecting the installation of your cooler, then the Federal regulation may preempt conflicting State regulations. Section 103(d) of the Act provides that no State may have a standard 'applicable to the same aspect of performance' of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, unless the state standard is 'identical to the Federal standard.' The Act does authorize State (sic) to establish higher standards of performance than the applicable Federal standard for vehicles or equipment procured for its own use. A determination of whether a Federal standard on direct fields of view would preempt a state standard on the same subject can only be made on a case-by-case basis after final action is taken on the field of view proposal and after reviewing the particular State standard.; You also asked whether you could use certain statements on your coole advising people to check state regulations before installing the cooler. The validity of such statements would be regulated by state law. Finally, you asked how you could obtain copies of state vehicle codes and information about obtaining a wavier (sic) or amendment of such codes. A law library may have copies of such codes. Otherwise, you will probably have to write to each State agency regulating motor vehicles to obtain a copy of their codes. I hope this information is of help to you. Please contact Steve Oesch of my office if you have any further questions about Federal regulations affecting your product at (202-426- 2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3329OpenMr. Kenneth W. Rix, Vice President, Great Plains Industries, Inc., 1711 Longfellow Lane, Wichita, KS 67207; Mr. Kenneth W. Rix Vice President Great Plains Industries Inc. 1711 Longfellow Lane Wichita KS 67207; Dear Mr. Rix: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1980, concerning a evaporative cooler you are considering manufacturing for use on motor vehicles. You explained that the unit would mount just outside the upper portion of the passenger window and would block approximately the upper 3 1/2 inches and protrude to the right of the drip rail approximately 10 inches. The following discussion answers your questions and outlines your responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*., a copy of which is enclosed).; You first asked whether your evaporative cooler would violate an Federal safety regulations. The agency has not issued and Federal motor vehicle safety standard directly establishing requirements for evaporative coolers. However, as explained below, installation of your cooler may be affected by the agency's proposed standard on direct fields of view. That proposal would prohibit certain obstructions in the driver's field of view. I have enclosed a copy of that notice of proposed rulemaking. (The agency does not plan to take final action on this proposal until early next year.); If the field of direct view standard is adopted, then installation o an evaporative cooler in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's sale to the first purchaser could be affected by section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, and the agency's certification regulation (49 CFR 567, a copy of which is enclosed). If a cooler is installed as an add-on item of motor vehicle equipment by a vehicle dealer prior to the vehicle's delivery to the first purchaser, then section 567.7 of the certification regulation would apply. That section provides that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle prior to its first purchase must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms to all applicable standards. Thus, a new vehicle would have to comply with the fields of view requirements with the cooler installed.; Whether or not your cooler is covered by a Federal safety standard, a a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you are required to comply with the provisions of the Act pertaining to safety-related defects (sections 151-159, 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). Thus, if your company learns of a defect relating to motor vehicle safety in its evaporative coolers, you would be required to notify this agency, as well as owners, purchasers or dealers of the equipment, concerning the defect and to remedy the defect without charge. Parts 573, 576, 577 and 579 of the agency's regulations (49 CFR 573, 576, 577 and 579) define in detail a manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to safety-related defects. I have enclosed copies of those regulations.; You also asked whether you must check each state code prior to sale o your evaporative cooler in that state, since some states may have regulations that are more restrictive than the Federal regulations. In the absence of a Federal standard directly affecting evaporative coolers, state regulations would govern the sale of your cooler. If there was a Federal standard affecting the installation of your cooler, then the Federal regulation may preempt conflicting State regulations. Section 103(d) of the Act provides that no State may have a standard 'applicable to the same aspect of performance' of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, unless the state standard is 'identical to the Federal standard.' The Act does authorize State (sic) to establish higher standards of performance than the applicable Federal standard for vehicles or equipment procured for its own use. A determination of whether a Federal standard on direct fields of view would preempt a state standard on the same subject can only be made on a case-by-case basis after final action is taken on the field of view proposal and after reviewing the particular State standard.; You also asked whether you could use certain statements on your coole advising people to check state regulations before installing the cooler. The validity of such statements would be regulated by state law. Finally, you asked how you could obtain copies of state vehicle codes and information about obtaining a wavier (sic) or amendment of such codes. A law library may have copies of such codes. Otherwise, you will probably have to write to each State agency regulating motor vehicles to obtain a copy of their codes. I hope this information is of help to you. Please contact Steve Oesch of my office if you have any further questions about Federal regulations affecting your product at (202-426- 2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4890OpenMr. Dwayne R. Szot 1404 Lay Boulevard Kalamazoo, MI 49001; Mr. Dwayne R. Szot 1404 Lay Boulevard Kalamazoo MI 49001; "FAX 616-382-0429 Dear Mr. Szot: This responds to your FAXed letter o June 28, l99l, with respect to your prospective importation from Poland of a 10-year old Syrena passenger car. We have also received a letter from Roy Slade, President, Cranbrook Academy of Art, relating to you. As you have explained, you intend to remove the engine upon arrival to meet EPA approval. You intend the remainder of the vehicle to become a 'time capsule' containing artifacts relating to the hopes and dreams of Poles, here and abroad, for the future, and their feelings about the past and present. You will transport the car among Polish communities here, and then seal the car in November in a Plexiglas box. For the next 25 years, the car will be displayed in its box at museums and art galleries, and, in 2016, will be returned to Poland. As you undoubtedly know, motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported into the United States, with such exceptions as Congress has authorized in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, and as have been set forth in the implementing regulation, 49 CFR Part 591. The Syrena, of course, does not meet these standards. The Act does not specifically permit the importation of a noncomplying vehicle for purposes of static display, though it does allow admission for purposes of 'research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training, or competitive racing events.' We have not interpreted any of these provisions as allowing importation for display. The question then is whether the importation of the Syrena for the purposes described may nonetheless be justified because it presents no threat to motor vehicle safety. We note that you will satisfy the concerns of EPA by removal of the engine. This, in itself, does not result in the Syrena becoming something other than a motor vehicle, but it does mean that the Syrena cannot be driven on the public roads. Further, under the circumstances you describe, should the vehicle be towed, it is unlikely to be occupied by passengers because of the quantity of its contents. Under the circumstances you have described, the Syrena time capsule will present no threat to motor vehicle safety. Although the importation of this vehicle may be a technical violation of the l988 Act, it would not be the type of violation that this agency, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, would pursue. You may therefore present this letter to the appropriate Customs officials at the port where the Syrena will arrive for entry into the United States as a statement from the Department of Transportation that it has no objection to your importation of the Syrena time capsule. If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) who spoke with your wife last week. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3338OpenMr. Emerson D. Gilbert, Yellowstone, Inc., 28163 C.R. 20 W., P.O. Box 1128, Elkhart, Indiana 46515; Mr. Emerson D. Gilbert Yellowstone Inc. 28163 C.R. 20 W. P.O. Box 1128 Elkhart Indiana 46515; Dear Mr. Gilbert: This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicl identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not giv advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4206OpenHerbert C. Glesmann, President, REMCO, 4138 So. 89th Street, Omaha, NE 68127; Herbert C. Glesmann President REMCO 4138 So. 89th Street Omaha NE 68127; Dear Mr. Glesmann: This is in response to your letter of June 4, 1986, and your subsequen conversation with Judith Kaleta of the Office of Chief Counsel and Richard Morse, Chief of the Odometer Fraud Staff.; Your company, REMCO, has designed a system whereby the odometer on vehicle being towed behind a recreational vehicle (RV) would not accumulate mileage. As you describe it, it is a mechanical disconnect system. Disconnection can only be from the RV by use of a mechanical clutch system while the towed vehicle is connected to the RV. When the towed vehicle is disconnected from the RV, the odometer functions automatically.; The Federal law states that 'No person shall, with intent to defraud operate a motor vehicle on any street or highway knowing that the odometer of such vehicle is disconnected or nonfunctional.' 15 U.S.C. S 1988. Therefore, you asked whether in NHTSA's opinion, the use of the system violates the law.; While the term 'operate' has not been defined in Title IV of the Moto Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the 'Act'), 15 U.S.C. SS 1981-1991, NHTSA has interpreted it to mean drive or tow with a load on the major components. When a vehicle is driven, load is put on the engine, transmission and other components of the drive train. Because REMCO's system puts no load on any components of the drive train, the towed vehicle is not being operated on the streets or highways in violation of the Act. However, persons utilizing the system should be advised that they must notify their buyer of the fact that the vehicle's odometer was disconnected.; Federal regulations, 49 C.F.R. S 580.4, provide for the inclusion o two sets of certifications on the odometer disclosure statements which must be completed at the time a vehicle is transferred. Transferors who tow their vehicles utilizing your system should check the first box of the first set which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odomete reading as stated above reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle described below.<<<; However, there is no statement in the second set of certification which applies to this situation. Therefore, transferors who have used your system to tow their vehicle should add a fourth statement which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer was disconnected when the vehicl was in tow.<<<; The purpose of the Act is to establish certain safeguards for th protection of motor vehicle purchasers. We feel this disclosure is consistent with the purpose of the Act.; I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any additiona questions, do not hesitate to call me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.