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 7741 - 7750 of 16490

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam1923 Open Honorable Carl Albert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Carl Albert Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Speaker: The purpose of this letter is to inform the committees on Interstat and Foreign Commerce and on Public Works and Transportation 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 House and their counterparts in the Senate, 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
ID: aiam1925 Open Honorable Carl Albert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Carl Albert Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Speaker: The purpose of this letter is to inform the committees on Interstat and Foreign Commerce and on Public Works and Transportation 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 House and their counterparts in the Senate, 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
ID: aiam1926 Open Honorable 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
ID: aiam1924 Open Honorable 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
ID: aiam3839 Open Mr. G. Couffinhal, Cibie/Marchal, 17, rue Henri Gautier, 93012 Bobigny Cedex, France; Mr. G. Couffinhal Cibie/Marchal 17 rue Henri Gautier 93012 Bobigny Cedex France; Dear Mr. Couffinhal: This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1984, to Richard Va Iderstine of this agency. With respect to the standardized light source socket for replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether a bulb socket design with a 'bottom view' diameter of 29.7 mm. etc. would be acceptable.; As you have noted, Dimension P of Figure 3-7 and 3-8 of Standard No 108 specifies a millimeter dimension of '(28.75 to 28.65)'. The dimension of your design exceeds this figure, and is therefore noncompliant with requirements intended to insure proper function with standardized replaceable light sources. It is not permitted by Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4816 Open Aggie Szilagyi, Esquire Senior Counsel New Jersey State Legislature Office of Legislative Services State House Annex CN-068 Trenton, NJ 08625; Aggie Szilagyi Esquire Senior Counsel New Jersey State Legislature Office of Legislative Services State House Annex CN-068 Trenton NJ 08625; "Dear Ms. Szilagyi: Thank you for your letter on behalf of Senato Ronald L. Rice requesting the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on whether the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (Theft Act)(15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.) would preempt provisions of New Jersey Senate Bill (SB) 3434. I apologize for the delay in this response. It is my understanding that SB 3434 has been reintroduced in this session of the legislature as SB 876. For the reasons described below, it is our opinion that the provisions in the bill for the mandatory antitheft devices on certain car lines would be preempted by the Theft Act. We understand that SB 876 would prohibit the sale or lease of a passenger automobile that is at or over the 'estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price for all passenger automobiles' unless it is equipped with a 'passive anti-theft device' that 'automatically activates upon turning off the motor of a vehicle and causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage.' Violation of this provision would be punishable by a fine. Although the Theft Act contains an explicit preemption provision (15 U.S.C. 2031) for parts marking systems which would not be triggered by SB 876, the bill would nonetheless create an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the overall Congressional objectives embodied in the Theft Act and would therefore be preempted. The objective of the Theft Act was to establish a least-cost antitheft system, with a parts-marking system being the system of choice. The Congress specified a $15-per-car limit for the cost of the system (15 U.S.C. 2024(a)), and made it clear that the alternative of installing antitheft devices was to be at the petition of the manufacturer, under procedures designed to ensure the effectiveness of such devices (15 U.S.C. 2025). SB 876 would not only have the effect of requiring the installation of antitheft devices in vehicles that are marked under the Theft Act, thereby imposing a greater cost on the owners, but could require a vehicle with an antitheft device approved under the Theft Act to be equipped with a second antitheft device if the first device did not operate in the manner prescribed by SB 876. These effects would prevent the accomplishment of the Theft Act's objectives, and would thus satisfy the conditions for general preemption found by the Supreme Court in Hines v.Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) and followed in subsequent cases (Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988), Northwest Central Pipeline Corporation v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas, (109 S. Ct. 1262 (1989)). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2518 Open Mr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Engineering, 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, Colorado 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Engineering 5990 N. Washington Street Denver Colorado 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 manufacturers (S567.4(g) (4)). The term 'GAWR' is defined in S571.3 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 equipped wit 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 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 requirements that the 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 a 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 than necessary to confirm 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 S567.4(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: aiam4928 Open Mr. Michael E. Kastner Director of Government Relations National Truck Equipment Association 1350 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005-4797; Mr. Michael E. Kastner Director of Government Relations National Truck Equipment Association 1350 New York Avenue NW Suite 800 Washington DC 20005-4797; "Dear Mr. Kastner: This responds to your letter of September 4, 1991 asking whether an altered vehicle label must be added under the following circumstances: An NTEA member receives a truck which is certified as a completed vehicle. This vehicle has not yet been titled or registered for use in any state. The NTEA member then installs a piece of equipment. This piece of equipment would not be considered readily attachable, nor would this equipment modify the completed vehicle's weight ratings. Both the completed truck manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer have stated that installation of this equipment would not affect compliance with any federal motor vehicle safety standard. If the modification you describe is performed prior to the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the answer to your question is yes. A person is considered an alterer if (1) they alter the vehicle in any manner 'other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations,' or (2) they alter 'the vehicle is such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid.' Since the conditions you describe involve equipment which is not readily attachable, the NTEA member would be considered an alterer. If considered an alterer, the NTEA member would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed. If the modification you describe is performed after the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the NTEA member would not be considered an alterer and an alteration label would not have to be attached. Under these conditions, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with applicable safety standards is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides: 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. In general, this 'render inoperative' provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that any additional equipment installed in a vehicle would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on the vehicle with applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2255 Open Mr. J.L. Chancey, President, Trail-O-Matic, Inc., P.O. Box 2367, Jacksonville, FL 32203; Mr. J.L. Chancey President Trail-O-Matic Inc. P.O. Box 2367 Jacksonville FL 32203; Dear Mr. Chancey: This responds to your March 8, 1976, request to know the status of 'lo trailers' under Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, whether the exclusion for 'heavy hauler' trailers terminates September 1, 1976, and what the penalties are for non-compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You indicate that you may know of some manufacturers that do not comply with Standard No. 121 and suggest that all persons concerned with the standard be advised of the status of the regulation.; Without description of the 'log trailers' in question, it is no possible to determine if Standard No. 121 applies to them. Most pole trailers and trailers equipped with any axle having a gross axle weight rating of 24,000 pounds or more are examples of vehicles that may be excluded from the standard. Mr. Herlihy of this office has already sent applicable documents to you under separate cover. The exclusion from the standard for 'heavy hauler' trailers was extended recently and now terminates September 1, 1977.; Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1)) prohibits the sale and false or misleading certification of a non-complying vehicle to which a standard is applicable. Each violation of these provisions makes the manufacturer liable to a maximum civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation, up to a total of $800,000 for a related series of violations. (15 U.S.C. S1398). You may advise our Office of Standards Enforcement of any violations of which you are aware.; The NHTSA finds it impracticable to notify directly every intereste person of each of its regulatory actions. Each action is made public and is widely distributed by commercial services and trade associations. Enclosed is an information sheet that explains the various means to obtain copies of our regulations.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2100 Open Mr. Chester Mercer, Jr., Mercer Machine & Hydraulics, Inc., 13060 Butler Street, Redding, Pennsylvania 19601; Mr. Chester Mercer Jr. Mercer Machine & Hydraulics Inc. 13060 Butler Street Redding Pennsylvania 19601; Dear Mr. Mercer: #I am writing to confirm your October 17, 1975 telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. I understand that your company manufactures, from hose and end fittings supplied by other manufacturers, hydraulic brake hose assemblies for use in motor vehicles. #For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of the standard (including two recent Federal Register notices) and an information sheet entitled 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations.' #The standard specifies performance and labeling requirements for brake hose, end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. As an assembly manufacturer, you must certify that your assemblies comply with the standard by affixing a band as set out in S5.2.4. A designation of your choice should identify you as the assembler. You need register this designation with the NHTSA only once, even if you also manufacture air brake hose assemblies. #While the standard generally requires assemblies to be manufactured from conforming hose and end fittings, an exception (set out in S12.) permits the use of hose and fittings which meet the performance requirements but not the labeling requirements, until August 31, 1976. (The labeling requirements for hose and fittings became effective September 1, 1974, this exception is designed to facilitate the depletion of inventories of such components manufactured before that date.) #The standard does not specify the testing which you must do, it does specify the performance levels which assemblies must meet when tested by the NHTSA for compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires you to conduct a notification and remedy campaign with respect to noncomplying assemblies. You are also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying assembly ( not to exceed $800,000 for each related series of noncompliances). The amount of testing which you perform has no effect on your notification and remedy obligations. If, however, you did exercise due care, you are not liable for the civil penalty. 'Due care' is a flexible concept. It is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of your company, the amount of testing you perform, and other factors. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

Request an Interpretation

You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:

The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590

If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.

Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam1923 Open Honorable Carl Albert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Carl Albert Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Speaker: The purpose of this letter is to inform the committees on Interstat and Foreign Commerce and on Public Works and Transportation 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 House and their counterparts in the Senate, 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
ID: aiam1925 Open Honorable Carl Albert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Carl Albert Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Speaker: The purpose of this letter is to inform the committees on Interstat and Foreign Commerce and on Public Works and Transportation 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 House and their counterparts in the Senate, 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
ID: aiam1926 Open Honorable 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
ID: aiam1924 Open Honorable 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
ID: aiam3839 Open Mr. G. Couffinhal, Cibie/Marchal, 17, rue Henri Gautier, 93012 Bobigny Cedex, France; Mr. G. Couffinhal Cibie/Marchal 17 rue Henri Gautier 93012 Bobigny Cedex France; Dear Mr. Couffinhal: This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1984, to Richard Va Iderstine of this agency. With respect to the standardized light source socket for replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether a bulb socket design with a 'bottom view' diameter of 29.7 mm. etc. would be acceptable.; As you have noted, Dimension P of Figure 3-7 and 3-8 of Standard No 108 specifies a millimeter dimension of '(28.75 to 28.65)'. The dimension of your design exceeds this figure, and is therefore noncompliant with requirements intended to insure proper function with standardized replaceable light sources. It is not permitted by Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4816 Open Aggie Szilagyi, Esquire Senior Counsel New Jersey State Legislature Office of Legislative Services State House Annex CN-068 Trenton, NJ 08625; Aggie Szilagyi Esquire Senior Counsel New Jersey State Legislature Office of Legislative Services State House Annex CN-068 Trenton NJ 08625; "Dear Ms. Szilagyi: Thank you for your letter on behalf of Senato Ronald L. Rice requesting the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on whether the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (Theft Act)(15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.) would preempt provisions of New Jersey Senate Bill (SB) 3434. I apologize for the delay in this response. It is my understanding that SB 3434 has been reintroduced in this session of the legislature as SB 876. For the reasons described below, it is our opinion that the provisions in the bill for the mandatory antitheft devices on certain car lines would be preempted by the Theft Act. We understand that SB 876 would prohibit the sale or lease of a passenger automobile that is at or over the 'estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price for all passenger automobiles' unless it is equipped with a 'passive anti-theft device' that 'automatically activates upon turning off the motor of a vehicle and causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage.' Violation of this provision would be punishable by a fine. Although the Theft Act contains an explicit preemption provision (15 U.S.C. 2031) for parts marking systems which would not be triggered by SB 876, the bill would nonetheless create an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the overall Congressional objectives embodied in the Theft Act and would therefore be preempted. The objective of the Theft Act was to establish a least-cost antitheft system, with a parts-marking system being the system of choice. The Congress specified a $15-per-car limit for the cost of the system (15 U.S.C. 2024(a)), and made it clear that the alternative of installing antitheft devices was to be at the petition of the manufacturer, under procedures designed to ensure the effectiveness of such devices (15 U.S.C. 2025). SB 876 would not only have the effect of requiring the installation of antitheft devices in vehicles that are marked under the Theft Act, thereby imposing a greater cost on the owners, but could require a vehicle with an antitheft device approved under the Theft Act to be equipped with a second antitheft device if the first device did not operate in the manner prescribed by SB 876. These effects would prevent the accomplishment of the Theft Act's objectives, and would thus satisfy the conditions for general preemption found by the Supreme Court in Hines v.Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) and followed in subsequent cases (Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988), Northwest Central Pipeline Corporation v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas, (109 S. Ct. 1262 (1989)). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2518 Open Mr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Engineering, 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, Colorado 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Engineering 5990 N. Washington Street Denver Colorado 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 manufacturers (S567.4(g) (4)). The term 'GAWR' is defined in S571.3 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 equipped wit 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 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 requirements that the 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 a 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 than necessary to confirm 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 S567.4(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: aiam4928 Open Mr. Michael E. Kastner Director of Government Relations National Truck Equipment Association 1350 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005-4797; Mr. Michael E. Kastner Director of Government Relations National Truck Equipment Association 1350 New York Avenue NW Suite 800 Washington DC 20005-4797; "Dear Mr. Kastner: This responds to your letter of September 4, 1991 asking whether an altered vehicle label must be added under the following circumstances: An NTEA member receives a truck which is certified as a completed vehicle. This vehicle has not yet been titled or registered for use in any state. The NTEA member then installs a piece of equipment. This piece of equipment would not be considered readily attachable, nor would this equipment modify the completed vehicle's weight ratings. Both the completed truck manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer have stated that installation of this equipment would not affect compliance with any federal motor vehicle safety standard. If the modification you describe is performed prior to the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the answer to your question is yes. A person is considered an alterer if (1) they alter the vehicle in any manner 'other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations,' or (2) they alter 'the vehicle is such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid.' Since the conditions you describe involve equipment which is not readily attachable, the NTEA member would be considered an alterer. If considered an alterer, the NTEA member would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed. If the modification you describe is performed after the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the NTEA member would not be considered an alterer and an alteration label would not have to be attached. Under these conditions, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with applicable safety standards is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides: 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. In general, this 'render inoperative' provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that any additional equipment installed in a vehicle would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on the vehicle with applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2255 Open Mr. J.L. Chancey, President, Trail-O-Matic, Inc., P.O. Box 2367, Jacksonville, FL 32203; Mr. J.L. Chancey President Trail-O-Matic Inc. P.O. Box 2367 Jacksonville FL 32203; Dear Mr. Chancey: This responds to your March 8, 1976, request to know the status of 'lo trailers' under Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, whether the exclusion for 'heavy hauler' trailers terminates September 1, 1976, and what the penalties are for non-compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You indicate that you may know of some manufacturers that do not comply with Standard No. 121 and suggest that all persons concerned with the standard be advised of the status of the regulation.; Without description of the 'log trailers' in question, it is no possible to determine if Standard No. 121 applies to them. Most pole trailers and trailers equipped with any axle having a gross axle weight rating of 24,000 pounds or more are examples of vehicles that may be excluded from the standard. Mr. Herlihy of this office has already sent applicable documents to you under separate cover. The exclusion from the standard for 'heavy hauler' trailers was extended recently and now terminates September 1, 1977.; Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1)) prohibits the sale and false or misleading certification of a non-complying vehicle to which a standard is applicable. Each violation of these provisions makes the manufacturer liable to a maximum civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation, up to a total of $800,000 for a related series of violations. (15 U.S.C. S1398). You may advise our Office of Standards Enforcement of any violations of which you are aware.; The NHTSA finds it impracticable to notify directly every intereste person of each of its regulatory actions. Each action is made public and is widely distributed by commercial services and trade associations. Enclosed is an information sheet that explains the various means to obtain copies of our regulations.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2100 Open Mr. Chester Mercer, Jr., Mercer Machine & Hydraulics, Inc., 13060 Butler Street, Redding, Pennsylvania 19601; Mr. Chester Mercer Jr. Mercer Machine & Hydraulics Inc. 13060 Butler Street Redding Pennsylvania 19601; Dear Mr. Mercer: #I am writing to confirm your October 17, 1975 telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. I understand that your company manufactures, from hose and end fittings supplied by other manufacturers, hydraulic brake hose assemblies for use in motor vehicles. #For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of the standard (including two recent Federal Register notices) and an information sheet entitled 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations.' #The standard specifies performance and labeling requirements for brake hose, end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. As an assembly manufacturer, you must certify that your assemblies comply with the standard by affixing a band as set out in S5.2.4. A designation of your choice should identify you as the assembler. You need register this designation with the NHTSA only once, even if you also manufacture air brake hose assemblies. #While the standard generally requires assemblies to be manufactured from conforming hose and end fittings, an exception (set out in S12.) permits the use of hose and fittings which meet the performance requirements but not the labeling requirements, until August 31, 1976. (The labeling requirements for hose and fittings became effective September 1, 1974, this exception is designed to facilitate the depletion of inventories of such components manufactured before that date.) #The standard does not specify the testing which you must do, it does specify the performance levels which assemblies must meet when tested by the NHTSA for compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires you to conduct a notification and remedy campaign with respect to noncomplying assemblies. You are also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying assembly ( not to exceed $800,000 for each related series of noncompliances). The amount of testing which you perform has no effect on your notification and remedy obligations. If, however, you did exercise due care, you are not liable for the civil penalty. 'Due care' is a flexible concept. It is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of your company, the amount of testing you perform, and other factors. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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: aiam1923

ID: aiam1925

ID: aiam1926

ID: aiam1924

ID: aiam3839

ID: aiam4816

ID: aiam2518

ID: aiam4928

ID: aiam2255

ID: aiam2100

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?