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: aiam5080OpenMr. Fredd Scheys President S.C.C. CARAT Inc. 109 Maple Avenue Huntsville, AL 35801; Mr. Fredd Scheys President S.C.C. CARAT Inc. 109 Maple Avenue Huntsville AL 35801; "Dear Mr. Scheys: This responds to your letter of October 2, 1992 asking for an explanation of how this agency's regulations would affect two types of vehicle conversions your company plans to undertake. In the first situation, a customer in California wishes to send two 'U.S. spec' cars that he presently owns to Europe for a 39-inch stretch conversion. In the second situation, the customer would take delivery of a 'U.S. spec car' in Europe, use it for tourist purposes, and leave it at your factory for conversion, and subsequent shipment to the United States. You also ask for 'advice for the case where we have to convert a car into an armoured car.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) provides generally that no person shall manufacture, sell, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless that vehicle is in conformity with all applicable U.S. motor vehicle safety standards and is covered by a manufacturer's certification to that effect. The certification requirements are set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567. The certification requirements apply to persons and entities that perform some manufacturing or conversion activities to a vehicle before that vehicle's first sale for purposes other than resale. This means that the original manufacturer of a vehicle (Mercedes-Benz, for instance) must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable U.S. safety standard and permanently affix a label with that statement on each such vehicle. For the purposes of this letter, I am assuming that the cars you call 'U.S. spec' cars are cars to which the original manufacturer has affixed its certification label. If any party performs conversion operations on a certified vehicle before the initial purchase of the vehicle, the party would be an 'alterer' and required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the converted vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7. However, in the situations posited in your letter, the conversions to be performed in Europe by your company would be performed on vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. This agency does not require any certification to be made or certification label to be affixed by entities that perform conversions on vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles. Thus, your company need not make its own certification nor affix its own label. Instead, your company must leave in place the original manufacturer's certification label. The only provision in U.S. law that applies to conversion operations performed on vehicles after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is set forth in Title 15, United States Code, section 1397(b)(2). That section of the law forbids any 'manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business' from 'knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' This means that your company must ensure that your conversion operations do not cause the converted vehicle to no longer comply with the U.S. motor vehicle safety standards. Pursuant to this responsibility, the agency would, for example, expect that, if the vehicle's weight ratings and tire inflation pressures shown on its original certification labels were no longer valid after conversion, a converter would install new labels showing the correct weight ratings and tire inflation pressures. Assuming your company leaves the original manufacturer's certification label in place on the converted vehicles, the owner of the vehicles should not encounter any difficulties when the converted vehicles are imported into the United States. The importer would simply file a declaration stating that the vehicle conforms to the applicable safety standards and bears an original manufacturer's certification label to that effect, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(b). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly explains our regulations and tells how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4320OpenMr. Robert A. Rogers, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, 30400 Mound Road, Warren, MI 48090-9015; Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015; Dear Mr. Rogers: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associat Administrator for Rulemaking, in which you explained why General Motors (GM) believes that it is not subject to the reporting requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 544, *Insurer Reporting Requirements*. We conclude that GM is an 'insurer' as that term is defined in section 612(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act 15 U.S.C. 2032(a)(3) , that GM is therefore subject to the requirements of Part 544, and that GM is overdue in filing its report for the 1985 calendar year.; 49 CFR S544.3 specifies that, 'This part applies to the issuers o motor vehicle insurance policies listed in Appendices A or B, and *to any person which has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles (other than a governmental entity) which are used primarily for rental or lease and are not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of motor vehicles,*' (Emphasis added). The emphasized language in the regulation is simply a quotation of the language used in section 612(a)(3) of the Cost Savings Act. Because the regulation uses the same language as the statute to describe this type of insurer, Part 544 applies only to those insurers that are statutorily-required to file these reports.; You noted in your letter that, 'GM has an employee lease fleet of 400 cars on which it does not have theft insurance.' As such, GM is an insurer within the meaning of section 612(a)(3), because it:; >>>1. Has a fleet of 20 or more vehicles, 2. Uses the vehicles primarily for rental or lease, and 3. Does not have theft insurance policies for this fleet.<<< GM appeared to agree that it was an insurer within the meaning of th statute when it filed its July 29, 1986 comments to the proposed Part 544. On page 2 of its comments, GM stated that the proposed criterion of exempting only those fleets with fewer than 20 vehicles would result in voluminous additional individual reports which would account for a relatively small percentage of the total vehicle population. GM stated that its lease fleet represents less than 5000 of one percent of all U.S. passenger cars. On page 3 of those comments, GM stated: ' The proposal requests additional information to aid in the agency's efforts to establish an appropriate exemption for small rental and leasing companies. As stated above, GM's lease program is expected to have no more than 5000 participants in 1987.' GM then stated that no data on costs or thefts were available for its leased fleet. This comment certainly implies that GM believed it would be required to report if the proposed requirements were adopted. Since the proposed requirements were adopted in this area, NHTSA thought that the vehicle manufacturers clearly understood that they were subject to these requirements, if they had a fleet of vehicles that were rented or leased to employees.; However, in your recent letter, you stated that you now believe tha you were not required to report theft data for this fleet for three reasons. First you stated that the GM 'evaluation fleet', which consists of 41,000 vehicles is *not* used primarily for rental or lease. According to your letter, slightly more than 4,000 vehicles are leased to employees. Since only 4,000 out of 41,000 vehicles in this fleet are leased to employees, you concluded that the 41,000 vehicle fleet is not used primarily for rental or lease. Hence, you believe that the statute does not require GM to report theft data for the 41,000 vehicle fleet. NHTSA agrees that GM is not required to file a report for the 41,000 vehicle fleet. The law requires GM to report *only* for the 4,000 vehicle fleet that is leased to employees.; Second, you argued that GM's 'evaluation lease' establishes conditional contract that limits the rights of the employee lessees. You sated that, 'Conventionally, the term 'lease' is applied to hiring on a lease with full rights of use for the lessee.' Since GM's evaluation lease limits the rights of the lessee, you stated that it is not a 'lease' within the conventional meaning of that word, so GM is not required to report by the statute. NHTSA agrees that the term 'lease' was used in its conventional sense in section 612. However, neither standard dictionaries of the English language nor Black's Law Dictionary define a lease as a transaction that gives *unconditional* rights of use to the lessee. Instead, a lease is generally defined as a transaction whereby an owner gives another the use of his property for a period of time in return for some compensation. GM's employee lease program satisfies this test, so GM is required to report theft data on the vehicles in its employee lease fleet.; Third, GM noted that the preamble to the final rule establishing Par 544 referred to this type of insurer as 'rental and leasing companies.' Since GM is not a rental *and* leasing company, it concludes that Part 544 was not intended to apply to it. NHTSA agrees that GM is not a rental and leasing company. That term was used as a shorthand notation for the following language in the application section of Part 544 and in the statute: 'any person which has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles (other than a governmental entity) which are used primarily for rental or lease and are not covered by theft insurance policies ...' This shorthand notation was not intended in any way to limit the requirement in Part 544 and the statute for such persons to file reports. Moreover, the language of Part 544 and the statute prevail over the language in a preamble in any event. Accordingly, GM is required to comply with its statutory duty to file reports.; GM has not yet filed its report for the 1985 calendar year, which wa due by January 31, 1987. Since the report was not filed because of a misunderstanding as to whether GM was subject to the requirements of Part 544, NHTSA will not take any enforcement action against GM for this failure to file a timely report if we receive your report under Part 544 for the 1985 calendar year within 45 days of the date of this letter.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5582OpenMr. Michael J. Wirsch Manager Electric Transportation Department Sacramento Municipal Utility District P.O. Box 15830 Sacramento, CA 95852-1830; Mr. Michael J. Wirsch Manager Electric Transportation Department Sacramento Municipal Utility District P.O. Box 15830 Sacramento CA 95852-1830; "Dear Mr. Wirsch: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1995 relating to the disposition of 16 City-El electric vehicles ('EVs') which were imported into the United States in 1992 for purposes of demonstration and testing. The EVs do not meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The EVs were imported pursuant to the declaration that, at the end of the test period, they would be exported or brought into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards not later than November 1995. You suggest that there may be a third alternative, which you would prefer: 'transferring ownership' to McClellan Air Force Base for use on base property and not on the public roads. McClellan apparently has been testing another group of 25 EVs. Although a literal interpretation of our regulations does not permit this transaction without exportation and reimportation of the EVs, we have determined that the transaction you propose is in the public interest, and may be accomplished, subject to the terms of this letter. In brief, the regulation under which the EVs were imported does not allow transfer of ownership or possession, and provides that such vehicles must be exported or brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the end of the period for which admission has been authorized. The regulations would permit the EVs to be exported to Mexico or Canada, transferred to McClellan, and reimported into the United States by McClellan under the same terms and conditions as the original importation (your letter indicates that McClellan may also be engaged in an evaluation of electric vehicles for use on military bases). We assume that this course of action would be acceptable to you and to McClellan. Under that assumption, we have tentatively concluded that it would be in the public interest to forego the formalities and to allow a direct transfer of the EVs to McClellan without requiring them to be exported. However, in order to allow us to reach a final conclusion, we want you to obtain from McClellan and to provide us with a written statement similar to what McClellan would have provided had it imported the vehicles itself. Understanding from you that the EVs will not be operated on the public roads, McClellan should also provide this assurance. We also need a statement as to McClellan's eventual intended disposition of the EVs, which should include an assurance that none of the EVs will be sold to individuals for on-road use. This is especially important in view of the fact that McClellan appears to be one of the military bases that has been selected for closure. Our eventual agreement to the transaction you propose will not relieve you of your obligation to fulfill the requirements of the U.S. Customs Service regarding the original importation of the EVs. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1435OpenMr. D. L. Massy, Chief Engineer, American Snowblast Corporation, 4695 Ironton Street, Denver, CO 80239; Mr. D. L. Massy Chief Engineer American Snowblast Corporation 4695 Ironton Street Denver CO 80239; Dear Mr. Massy: This responds to your March 4, 1974, question whether your rotar snowplows, constructed with four-wheel drive and four-wheel steer and a top speed of 35 miles per hour, must be certified to conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You also asked whether 'certified brakes' will be sufficient certification to Standard 121, what the effects of a locked transfer case are on an anti-lock system, and what procedure exists to petition for an exemption from the standard.; I have enclosed an information sheet which explains that the vehicle you build for highway use are motor vehicles subject to the standard. The standard applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, not just to the brake system. In the event that the vehicles as completed do not actually comply, it is the manufacturer of the vehicle who is responsible.; I have enclosed a copy of the law and regulations explaining the basi for and necessary procedures to apply for a temporary exemption from our safety standards.; With regard to a locked transfer case, S6.1.11 of the air brak standard requires:; >>>S6.1.11 *Special drive conditions*. A vehicle equipped with a interlocking axle system or a front wheel drive system that is engaged and disengaged by the driver is tested with the system disengaged.<<<; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0239OpenMr. F. Clayton Meserve, President, Micro Machinery Products, Inc., 808 Main Street, Winchester, Massachusetts 01890; Mr. F. Clayton Meserve President Micro Machinery Products Inc. 808 Main Street Winchester Massachusetts 01890; Dear Mr. Meserve: Thank you for your comments and suggestions contained in your April 23 1970, letter to Mrs Douglas Toms concerning motor vehicle Safety.; In your letter, you ask that the Bureau clarify whether a dealer wh sells 'Micro-siped' tires that do not comply with Standard no. 109 would be subject to a civil penalty. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. *et seq*) prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling or offering for sale any item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. the prohibitions specified in the Act, do not apply after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (108(b)(1)). Therefore, if a dealer offers for sale or sells new tires that have been micro-siped and those tires do not comply with Standard No. 109 he would be subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each tire that did not comply. This penalty provision would not be applicable, however, if the tires to be micro-siped are owned by the user of the tires.; It is noted for your information that section 569.7(c) of the Regroove Tire Regulation (formerly 369.7(c), copy enclose) prohibits sale, offer for sale, or introduction in interstate commerce 'siped tires produced by cutting the tread surface of a regrooved or regroovable tire without removing rubber, if the tire cord material is damaged as a result of the siping process, or if the tire is siped deeper than the original, retread, or regrooved groove depth.'; Your interest in the motor vehicle safety program is greatl appreciated.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz,Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4971OpenDr. Larry J. French President and CEO Magnascreen 265 Kappa Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15238; Dr. Larry J. French President and CEO Magnascreen 265 Kappa Drive Pittsburgh PA 15238; "Dear Dr. French: This responds to your letter inquiring about a recen amendment to Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. (49 CFR 571.111) You explained that your company is developing electronically controlled dimmable (day/night) rearview mirrors for motor vehicles and requested that the agency assess your reading of section S11 of the standard. We are pleased to have this opportunity to interpret our standard for you. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following letter represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter. Safety Standard No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which was recently amended to better address new mirror designs, specifies requirements for mirror construction. (See 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991.) The section states in relevant part that: All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure. You asked whether an alternate power source can be used to achieve the specified fail-safe operation (i.e., adjusting the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure). While your letter did not specify what you meant by 'alternate power source,' we assume that it means an electrical power source other than the one intended to normally operate the mirror. Examples of an alternate electrical power source include solar energy or a self-contained battery system. We interpret the term 'electrical failure,' as used in section S11 of Standard No. 111, to include any type of electrical failure. This would include electrical failure related to an alternate power source as well as electrical failure related to the primary power source. Therefore, unless adjustment of the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent occurred even in situations where there was electrical failure related to the alternate power source, the alternate electrical source could not be used to provide the fail-safe operation required by section S11. The preamble to the final rule amending Standard No. 111 explained that the agency wanted to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. The agency noted that situations can occur where the mirror would be unpowered even though the vehicle could be operational, citing connector faults and circuit board faults. See 56 FR 58515. To comply with section S11 in situations where a mirror is unpowered as a result of electrical failure, a mirror would either have to default automatically to the high reflectance mode (as in the case of an opposite polarity fail-safe liquid crystal mirror described in the preamble) or be capable of being manually adjusted to the high reflectance mode. We do not have enough information about your proposed mirror to determine whether it would comply with the amendments in the case of electrical failure related to the alternate power source. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0527OpenMr. Stewart N. Metz, Crane Carrier Company, P.O. Box 4508, Tulsa, OK 74104; Mr. Stewart N. Metz Crane Carrier Company P.O. Box 4508 Tulsa OK 74104; Dear Mr. Metz: This is in response to your letter (sic) of November 16 and 30, 1971 concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 to heavy duty trucks. You reported that you are unlikely to be able to bring the side door locks and latches on your truck into conformity with the standard until mid-1972.; In your first letter, you asked whether the standard will apply to al trucks or only those having a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. The standard will apply, beginning January 1, 1972, to all trucks without regard to their GVWR.; In your second letter, you requested for your trucks a temporar exemption of 180 days from the standard. We regret that we are unable to consider your request, since our authority under section 12 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) to grant such exemptions expired in April of this year.; Beginning January 1, 1972, the manufacture of any truck not i compliance with Standard 206 will be prohibited. Section 108(a) of the Act provides that; >>>'No person shall manufacture for sale . . . any motor vehicle . . manufactured on or after the date any applicable . . . standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . ' (15 U.S.C. 1397)<<<; The prohibition is enforceable by civil penalties under section 109 (1 U.S.C. 1398) and injunction under section 110 (15 U.S.C. 1399). In addition, in the event that a noncompliance were determined to be a safety-related defect, notification of the defect would have to be furnished under section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402).; Let us know if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4024OpenMr. Robert C. Blunt, Papy, Poole, Weissenborn & Papy, 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 502, Coral Gables, FL 33134; Mr. Robert C. Blunt Papy Poole Weissenborn & Papy 201 Alhambra Circle Suite 502 Coral Gables FL 33134; Dear Mr. Blunt: This responds to your two letters to former Chief Counsel Jeffre Miller in which you sought information concerning our Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).; In your first letter, you enclosed a copy of a newspaper article tha appeared in the Miami Herald. That article stated that a 'Federal study' rated projected mileage for 134 different radial tires, and ranked the 'best' and 'worst' tires. You asked for a copy of this study, along with the standards used by the agency to grade treadwear, traction, and temperature-resistance for tires. Your second letter indicates you subsequently received a copy of our UTQGS (49 CFR S575.104), which sets forth the procedures the tire manufacturers use to grade their tires. As discussed below, the 'Federal study' referenced in the newspaper article is merely information taken from tire manufacturers' UTQGS submissions to the agency.; As set forth in the UTQGS, this agency requires the tire manufacturer to assign grades to each of their tire designs. NHTSA then makes available to the public the grade assignments reported to it by the tire manufacturers. Hence, the tests to which the article referred were conducted entirely by the individual tire manufacturers, not by the Federal government.; Neither the tire manufacturers nor the agency made, or could make, an total tire mileage projections from the reported treadwear grades. If one were to project total mileage from the treadwear grade, one could say only that a certain tire might get x miles if driven over the same roads at the same speeds on the same vehicles with the same careful maintenance performed daily on those vehicles. A projection of a tire's treadlife which did not include all of these caveats would be misleading.; Finally, the agency does not categorize particular tires as the best o the worst based solely on the treadwear grades assigned by the manufacturers. Such an approach ignores the importance of the traction and temperature resistance grades, both of which have far greater significance from a safety standpoint than does the treadwear grade. Because of the many variables involved in selecting the most appropriate tire, this agency cannot state that any particular tire is the best for most drivers.; In your second letter, you stated that you had received a 198 publication entitled 'Tire Grading System Information,' and requested a copy of the 1983 and 1984 updates of that publication. The agency did not update that publication during those years. Instead, all interested consumers have been provided with a complete listing of all grades which have been reported to the agency, together with an explanatory sheet telling how to use those grades. I have enclosed a copy of those grades for your information.; For your information, NHTSA suspended treadwear grading requirement under the UTQGS, effective February 8, 1983. This action was announced after the agency found high levels of variability in treadwear test results and in the grade assignment practices of the various tire manufacturers. This variability resulted in a substantial likelihood that treadwear information being provided to the public under this program would be misleading, i.e., that the assigned treadwear grades could, in many instances, incorrectly rank the actual treadwear performance of different tires.; On April 24, 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Distric of Columbia Circuit vacated the agency's suspension of the treadwear grading requirements in *Public Citizen v. Steed*, 733 F.2d 93. Accordingly, the agency published a final rule reimplementing the treadwear grading requirements on December 19, 1984 (49 FR 49293, copy enclosed). Hence, if you were seeking treadwear grades for 1983 and 1984, none were assigned during those years.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0154OpenMr. John I. Tolson, IFFISA, Mariposa No. 1050, Mexico 13, D.F.; Mr. John I. Tolson IFFISA Mariposa No. 1050 Mexico 13 D.F.; Dear Mr. Tolson: We regret the delay in replying to your letter of January 15, 1969, t Dr. William Haddon, Jr., concerning regulations applicable to replicas of antique automobiles which you manufacture.; As a general rule, motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1 1968, must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in order to be imported into the United States. Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) requires that manufacturers permanently affix a tag or label to the motor vehicle certifying that the motor vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) established under authority of Section 103 of the Act. Your vehicles would properly be classified as passenger cars. Thus the FMVSS applicable to this classification would apply. The above standards are currently applicable only to motor vehicles over 1,000 pounds curb weight. Curb weight includes a full load of engine fuel, oil, and coolant as defined in 49 CFR 371.3. In accordance with a proposed rule making published in 32 FR, page 14282, October 14, 1967, the Administrator is considering adding new standards applicable to motor vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight, and revising certain of the initial standards to extend their applicability to these motor vehicles. Comments have been received from industry and a discussion paper on the subject prepared. This discussion paper will be mailed to industry in the near future, together with a notice of a meeting to be held on the subject. Your name is being added to the mailing list for this information.; 19 CFR 12.80, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicl Equipment, was jointly issued and published by the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Treasury in implementation of Section 108(b)(3) of the Act. This regulation makes provision for importation of certain motor vehicles not conforming to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, subject to specific conditions.; An amendment to the Act has granted authority to the Secretary o Transportation, based upon certain specified findings, to exempt temporarily, a limited production motor vehicle from any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. A limited production motor vehicle is a defined as a motor vehicle produced by a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production, as determined by the Secretary, does not exceed 500 annually. It is to be noted, however, that exemptions are granted to the person actually producing the motor vehicle, not to the importer or distributor of such motor vehicle. Regulations for petitioning for an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 355.5.; In the United States, motor vehicles are licensed for operation by eac of the states and the District of Columbia. A letter addressed to the State Department of Motor Vehicles in the capitol city of the states in which you intend marketing your product, should reach an individual who can provide you with information regarding state licensing requirements.; While you did not inquire about Federal regulations concerning contro of anti-pollution emission devices, this is another area of possible effect in your situation. These regulations are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation, but of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. By copy of this letter, Mr. William H. Megonnell, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Compliance, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, BCT, 801 North Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22203, is being requested to forward such information as he deems appropriate.; Publications of the Socity (sic) of Automotive Engineers (SAE) including copies of SAE Standards, may be obtained by writing to: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 2 Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York, 1001 (sic).; For your information and guidance, enclosed are copies of the Act, a amended, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, (49 CFR 351, 353, 355 and 371), 19 CFR 122.80, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment, Declaration Form HS-7, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the proposed rule making, Docket 5-1.; Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director |
|
ID: aiam3371OpenMr. Stephen E. Mulligan, International Harvester, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan International Harvester 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60611; Dear Mr. Mulligan: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1980, in which you as whether compliance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, will satisfy the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115.; Section 4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 require that the vehicle identification number (VIN) 'appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part.' S4.3.1 requires each character to appear in a capital, sans serif typeface. In the case of passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, each character must have a minimum height of 4 mm. S4.4 specifies that the VIN for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR shall be located within the passenger compartment.; Section 567.4 of Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), requires tha the certification label be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and display the vehicle identification number. Consequently, for all vehicles except passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, compliance with S 567.4 of Part 567 would also effect compliance with S4.3 of Standard No. 115 so long as capital, sans serif typeface was used.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.