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 7831 - 7840 of 16490

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam1942 Open Mr. Donald W. Segraves, Vice President, American Mutual Insurance Alliance, 20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606; Mr. Donald W. Segraves Vice President American Mutual Insurance Alliance 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago IL 60606; Dear Mr. Segraves: This is in response to your letter of May 9, 1975, expressing you opposition to any bumper requirement that would permit the elimination of the energy absorbers from motor vehicle bumper systems.; Your letter refers to a statement made by Mr. James Schultz in a May 7 1975, letter responding to your request for information concerning the cost-benefit trade-off involved in permitting damage to the bumper face bar components and associated fasteners. Mr. Schultz's comment that 'the proposed schedule for implementation of the surface damage criteria would not effect a lowering of the current level of bumper performance' was directed only at the exterior surface damage provisions which are proposed as part of a Part 581 damageability standard under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513).; With regard to the provisions of Standard No. 215, Exterio Protection, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's action to reduce the number of required longitudinal pendulum impacts was taken to bring the test requirements more in line with real-world conditions. As was explained in the May 7 letter, the number of required pendulum impacts has been revised to conform to the average number of low-speed impacts a vehicle will encounter in its lifetime. The ability of a vehicle to comply with the pendulum test requirements will therefore assure its ability to withstand the number of low-speed collisions in which it is likely to be involved.; We are not able to predict whether the reduced number of impacts wil enable removal of the energy absorbing devices from the bumper system. Nissan has stated that they will not be able to eliminate the energy absorbers. However, it remains possible that some manufacturers could at least reduce the size of the components.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5261 Open Mr. James E. Walker III Manager, LSI Laboratories Lighting Sciences, Inc. 7830 E. Evans Road Scottsdale, AZ 85260; Mr. James E. Walker III Manager LSI Laboratories Lighting Sciences Inc. 7830 E. Evans Road Scottsdale AZ 85260; Dear Mr. Walker: We are replying to your letter of October 4, 1993 with respect to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for taillamps. You believe that a discrepancy exists because paragraph S5.1.1 'requires equipment to be designed to Tables I, II you mean III , and S7, which references SAE J585e for the Tail Lamp,' whereas paragraph S5.1.1.11 'requires Table 1 of this specification to be substituted for the values achieved by Figures 1a and 1b, and in addition, to substitute Table 1 of SAE J585e by the values achieved by multiplying the percentages of Figure 1a by Table 1 and 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps.' You assume that the photometric requirements are those of Figure 1a, 1b, and 1c. Your assumption is correct. However, there is no discrepancy in the standard. The requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are set forth in Section S5. Paragraph S5.1.1 requires lighting equipment to comply with the SAE materials contained in the tables, except as may be provided in succeeding paragraphs of Paragraph S5.1.1. Tables I and III incorporate by reference SAE Standard J585e, Tail Lamps, September 1977. However, on March 3, 1993, NHTSA redesignated Paragraph S5.1.1.11 (with its references to Figures 1a and 1b) as S5.1.1.6, and revised it to include, among other things, the reference in paragraph S5.1.1.12 to Figure 1c. The same notice removed paragraph S5.1.1.12 from the standard. New Paragraph S5.1.1.6 states that instead of the photometric values specified in Table 1 of SAE J585e, taillamps shall comply with those of Figures 1a, 1b and 1c. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information, and hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;
ID: aiam2734 Open Mr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P. O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P. O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your October 24, 1977, letter asking whether th framework of a roof hatch must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.; The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of th standard to a particular section of school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) that encloses occupant space in a bus comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the frame of a roof hatch, it appears that this joint need not comply with the requirements. This conclusion is reached because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that a roof hatch is equivalent to a door or window for the purposes of the application of the requirements. The joint connecting the frame of a door, window, or roof hatch to a bus body falls within the exception to the applicability of Standard No. 221.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2378 Open Mr. Ray W. Murphy, Director, Research and Development, Freightliner Corporation, 4747 N. Channel Avenue, P.O. Box 3849, Portland, OR 97208; Mr. Ray W. Murphy Director Research and Development Freightliner Corporation 4747 N. Channel Avenue P.O. Box 3849 Portland OR 97208; Dear Mr. Murphy: This responds to your July 23, 1976, question whether the 'no lockup requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the 'no lockup' performance is provided by means of an antilock system. Sections S5.3.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.3.2 (trailers) specify that the vehicle shall, under various load, road surface, and speed conditions, be capable of stopping; >>>. . .without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for: (a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system. . . (b)<<< This basic requirement is stated in performance terms, permitting manufacturer to choose any brake system design that will ensure that the wheels do not lock up under the specified conditions.; The exception to the 'no lockup' requirement set forth above permit 'controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system.' Manufacturers demonstrated, during the course of rulemaking, that properly functioning antilock systems might be designed to allow wheel lockup for a fraction of a second, and that antilock design should not be inhibited by a prohibition on all lockup. The agency made the 'controlled lockup' exception a part of the standard (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971) and has subsequently interpreted the term to permit manufacturers latitude in the design of their systems.; In compliance with the basic requirement, most manufacturers hav equipped each axle of a vehicle with a valve to regulate the air pressure that applies the brakes, sensors at each wheel to send a signal when a wheel is locking up, and a logic module that receives the signals and instructs the valve when to release air pressure to prevent lockup ('axle-by-axle control'). Recently, some manufacturers have simplified their systems by utilizing only one valve and logic module to modulate the air supply to both axles of the typical tandem axle system found on many trucks and trailers ('tandem control'). Two approaches to wheel sensor placement have been used for tandem control systems. If it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only, knowing that reduced air pressure in response to a signal from the 'sensed' axle will also release the brakes on the 'unsensed' axle. In other cases, where it is not possible to predict which axle will lock first, tandem control systems may have sensors on all four wheels of the tandem.; In November 12, 1974, and March 7, 1975, letters of interpretation t Dana Corporation, the NHTSA confirmed that a manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. Thus, tandem control is not prohibited by the standard, regardless of the number of wheel speed sensors provided. When Dana asked if lockup on the unsensed axle of a single-axle sensor system would qualify for the 'controlled lockup' exception of the requirement, the agency said that it would not, reasoning that the logic module would not exert effective control over the lockup of the unsensed axle without benefit of input signals from wheels on that axle. Therefore, according to the Dana interpretation, the unsensed axle in a single-axle sensor system could not be allowed to lock at all, even momentarily, during the service brake stopping test. No data of actual performance was submitted with the Dana letter.; Your letter argues that the NHTSA's interpretation of 'controlle lockup' (to Dana Corporation) creates an anomalous and unjustified restriction on the use of 'tandem control.' Your submission, and data received by the agency from other interested persons, demonstrate that the Dana interpretation does not adequately reflect the degree of control which a single-axle sensor system actually can exert over the unsensed axle of a tandem system. Based on analysis of the submitted data, it appears that the amount of lockup permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the available antilock systems. While there is a measurable difference in stopping performance between 'axle-by-axle' control and 'tandem control,' the standard already permits either of these means to satisfy the requirements. When the narrower question of the performance difference between sensors on one or both axles is analyzed, it is apparent that virtually no difference exists in the stopping distance of vehicles equipped these two ways. The effective lateral stability available during a stop also appears comparable regardless of placement of sensors on one or both axles. A technical report summarizing these findings will be placed in the public docket as soon as possible.; For this reason, and based on review of test data unavailable at th time of the Dana interpretation, the agency concludes that its interpretation of 'controlled lockup' in response to the question posed by Dana should be, and is hereby, withdrawn. It is the agency's interpretation that the 'controlled lockup' exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2379 Open Mr. A. F. Hulverson, Vice President, Engineering, Fruehauf Division, Fruehauf Corporation, 10900 Harper Avenue, P.O. Box 238, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. A. F. Hulverson Vice President Engineering Fruehauf Division Fruehauf Corporation 10900 Harper Avenue P.O. Box 238 Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Hulverson: This responds to your August 17, 1976, question whether the 'no lockup requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the 'no lockup' performance is provided by means of an antilock system. Sections S5.3.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.3.2 (trailers) specify that the vehicle shall, under various load, road surface, and speed conditions, be capable of stopping; >>>. . .without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for: (a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system. . . (b)<<< This basic requirement is stated in performance terms, permitting manufacturer to choose any brake system design that will ensure that the wheels do not lock up under the specified conditions.; The exception to the 'no lockup' requirement set forth above permit 'controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system.' Manufacturers demonstrated, during the course of rulemaking, that properly functioning antilock systems might be designed to allow wheel lockup for a fraction of a second, and that antilock design should not be inhibited by a prohibition on all lockup. The agency made the 'controlled lockup' exception a part of the standard (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971) and has subsequently interpreted the term to permit manufacturers latitude in the design of their systems.; In compliance with the basic requirement, most manufacturers hav equipped each axle of a vehicle with a valve to regulate the air pressure that applies the brakes, sensors at each wheel to send a signal when a wheel is locking up, and a logic module that receives the signals and instructs the valve when to release air pressure to prevent lockup ('axle-by-axle control'). Recently, some manufacturers have simplified their systems by utilizing only one valve and logic module to modulate the air supply to both axles of the typical tandem axle system found on many trucks and trailers ('tandem control'). Two approaches to wheel sensor placement have been used for tandem control systems. If it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only, knowing that reduced air pressure in response to a signal from the 'sensed' axle will also release the brakes on the 'unsensed' axle. In other cases, where it is not possible to predict which axle will lock first, tandem control systems may have sensors on all four wheels of the tandem.; In November 12, 1974, and March 7, 1975, letters of interpretation t Dana Corporation, the NHTSA confirmed that a manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. Thus, tandem control is not prohibited by the standard, regardless of the number of wheel speed sensors provided. When Dana asked if lockup on the unsensed axle of a single-axle sensor system would qualify for the 'controlled lockup' exception of the requirement, the agency said that it would not, reasoning that the logic module would not exert effective control over the lockup of the unsensed axle without benefit of input signals from wheels on that axle. Therefore, according to the Dana interpretation, the unsensed axle in a single-axle sensor system could not be allowed to lock at all, even momentarily, during the service brake stopping test. No data of actual performance was submitted with the Dana letter.; Your letter argues that the NHTSA's interpretation of 'controlle lockup' (to Dana Corporation) creates an anomalous and unjustified restriction on the use of 'tandem control.' Your submission, and data received by the agency from other interested persons, demonstrate that the Dana interpretation does not adequately reflect the degree of control which a single-axle sensor system actually can exert over the unsensed axle of a tandem system. Based on analysis of the submitted data, it appears that the amount of lockup permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the available antilock systems. While there is a measurable difference in stopping performance between 'axle-by-axle' control and 'tandem control,' the standard already permits either of these means to satisfy the requirements. When the narrower question of the performance difference between sensors on one or both axles is analyzed, it is apparent that virtually no difference exists in the stopping distance of vehicles equipped these two ways. The effective lateral stability available during a stop also appears comparable regardless of placement of sensors on one or both axles. A technical report summarizing these findings will be placed in the public docket as soon as possible.; For this reason, and based on review of test data unavailable at th time of the Dana interpretation, the agency concludes that its interpretation of 'controlled lockup' in response to the question posed by Dana should be, and is hereby, withdrawn. It is the agency's interpretation that the 'controlled lockup' exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2345 Open James H. Gross, Esq., Messrs. Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, 1701 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; James H. Gross Esq. Messrs. Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease 1701 K Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Gross: This is in response to your letter of June 15, 1976, concerning 49 CF Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.; As we understand the situation, Geo. Byers Sons, Inc., ('Byers') ha imported 988 motorcycles whose tires were manufactured by VEB REIFENKONBINAT ('VEB'), a corporation in the German Democratic Republic. VEB has to date failed to apply for a manufacturer's designation and to mark the tires supplied with the motorcycles in accordance with Part 574. Consequently, Byers wishes to apply for an identification mark on behalf of the manufacturer and itself carry out Part 574 marking requirements.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 defines manufacturer to include a person importing motor vehicles for resale. As a statutory manufacturer, the importer of record could become responsible for insuring compliance with Part 574. We understand that the importer of record is East-Europe Export, Inc., but that there is a serious question of East-Europe's continuation as a corporation and, consequently, the ability of the NHTSA to require East-Europe to satisfy the requirements of Part 574. Therefore, although not expressly permitted by the regulation, we would not object in this instance to Byers, as the distributor of the motorcycles, applying in its own name for a manufacturer's tire identification mark (so long as it is willing to accept the responsibility for carrying out the requirements of Part 574). Because of the recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, we would not permit Byers to apply for an identification mark, on behalf of VEB itself, without showing that VEB intended to fulfill the requirements of Part 574.; In any event, VEB must submit a designation of an agent for service o process as required by Section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR 551.45.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2319 Open Mr. G. Buzzi-Ferraris, Technical Manager, Pirelli Tire Corporation, 600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016; Mr. G. Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager Pirelli Tire Corporation 600 Third Avenue New York New York 10016; Dear Mr. Buzzi-Ferraris: I am writing in response to your March 12, 1976, letter to Mr. Rober Aubuchon of this agency, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.; You have inquired whether such vehicles may be equipped with tires tha --; >>>(i) 'Carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus th marking 'MAX SPEED' because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH -- S.6.5.'; (ii) 'Have passed the endurance test -- S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance wit table III --- speed restricted service: 35 MPH'; (iii) 'have not been tested for high speed S.6.3-- in fact they ar speed restricted ...'<<<; an otherwise comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119. I assume that, where your letter refers to the marking 'MAX SPEED', yo intended 'MAX SPEED 35 MPH'. Although such labeling is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Tires for motor driven cycles are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires. In particular, the schedule for endurance testing is that found in the 'motorcycle' entry of Table III, rather than the '35 m.p.h.' entry. Similarly, these tires are subject to the high speed performance requirements of S.6.3 without exception. An amendment of Standard No. 119 on this subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.; Standard No. 119 prohibits the manufacture of the tires that you hav described on and after March 1, 1975. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles equipped with such tires on and after September 1, 1976.; Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2591 Open Mr. Thomas E. Niehaus, 329 Miller Court, Harrison OH 45030; Mr. Thomas E. Niehaus 329 Miller Court Harrison OH 45030; Dear Mr. Niehaus: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1977, asking whethe Federal requirements specify that motor vehicle bumpers must be equipped with a rubber stripping.; Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, is a motor vehicle safet standard promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That standard requires that passenger cars be capable of undergoing 5 mph front and rear impacts without incurring damage to certain specified safety systems. Motor vehicle manufacturers are permitted to meet the performance level prescribed by Standard 215 in whatever manner they choose. Most, however, have elected to meet the requirements by improving the strength of the vehicle bumper system. Although a rubber bumper strip is not specifically required by the standard, a manufacturer may use such a component as a means of meeting the prescribed performance level.; All 1977 model year cars must be capable of meeting the requirements o Standard 215. This includes those which are equipped with an optional bumper system and those which are not.; If we can provide you with any further information, please let us know. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5417 Open William R. Willen, Esq. Managing Counsel American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 1919 Torrance Boulevard Torrance, CA 90501-2746; William R. Willen Esq. Managing Counsel American Honda Motor Co. Inc. 1919 Torrance Boulevard Torrance CA 90501-2746; "Dear Mr. Willen: We have received your 'Petition for Honda Electri Vehicles in accordance with FMVSS 555.6(c)' (correctly, 49 CFR 555.6(c)), dated June 28, 1994. The petition is incomplete in certain respects. It fails to provide the public interest and traffic safety arguments required by 555.5(b)(7). Section 555.6(c)(2)(iii) requires the submission of 'the results of any tests conducted on the vehicle that demonstrate its failure to meet the standard, expressed as comparative performance levels.' You have provided this information with respect to your request for exemption from Standard No. 103 but not with respect to the eight interior components that accompany your request for exemption from Standard No. 302. If you have conducted tests on these components, yuou are required to submit them as part of your petition. In addition, the petition does not state whether the period for which exemption is requested is for one or two years (you may need the latter if the manufacture of the 20 electric vehicles is not completed within a year from the date of grant of the petition). If the vehicles are manufactured outside the United States, Honda may wish to avail itself of the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(j) which allows a manufacturer to import noncomplying vehicles for purposes of research, investigation, and studies for a period of up to three years (when the temporary importation bond must be paid). After payment of the bond, a manufacturer may request NHTSA for an extension if it requires further time to complete its tests and evaluations. We shall hold your petition in abeyance until we hear further from you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2071 Open Mr. Dennis E. David, Manager, Legislative Section, Kawasaki Motors Corporation, U.S.A., 1062 McCaw Avenue, P.O. Box 11447, Santa Ana, CA 92711; Mr. Dennis E. David Manager Legislative Section Kawasaki Motors Corporation U.S.A. 1062 McCaw Avenue P.O. Box 11447 Santa Ana CA 92711; Dear Mr. David: Your letter of August 22, 1975, addressed to Mr. Robert F. Hellmuth Office of Defects Investigation, has been referred to this office for reply. You have identified all model year Kawasaki motorcycles models KZ400, H1, H2, and Z1 equipped with Kawasaki accessory half-fairing installed as containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. The defect involves the fatigue failure of the mounting bracket which attaches the half- fairing to the motorcycle.; Kawasaki has developed a new bracket for the KZ400 and Z1 models an intends to repair those models by installing the new bracket in place of the old. However, you have indicated that Kawasaki has been unsuccessful in developing a satisfactory mounting bracket for the models H1 and H2.; Based on the above facts, you have addressed two questions to th agency which will be answered in the order presented.; >>>1. To facilitate replacement of the mounting brackets on the model KZ400 and Z1, we intend to ship the newly designed parts to the Kawasaki Dealer nearest to the owner of the motorcycle. It is then our intention to direct the owner to go to this dealer for the replacement.; Question: Is it allowable for us to so direct the owner, and if so, ma such directions be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to Part 577, Defect Notification?<<<; Answer - It is allowable for Kawasaki to so direct the owner, an such directions may be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 577.; >>>2. Is it allowable to repurchase the half-fairing from the owners o the models H1 and H2 (estimated quantity 25 total for both models), and if so, is it allowable for Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. to contact these customers by telephone prior to sending a notification letter as required by Part 577?<<<; Answer - Unfortunately, it is not allowable to repurchase th half-fairing from the owners of the H1 and H2 models. The half-fairings are items of 'motor vehicle equipment' as defined in section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S 1391(4) hereinafter 'the Act'). Congress has explicitly limited the options of manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. While repurchase of a motor vehicle is permissible when a safety related defect is contained therein, such is not the case when the defect is contained in an item of motor vehicle equipment. Compare 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(A) with 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(b), accord H.R. Rep. No. 1452, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 26-29 (1974).; Half-fairings can make a safety contribution by shielding the ride from flying stones or other small debris and reducing driver fatigue on long trips. It is therefore reasonable that Congress would require that such equipment be either repaired or replaced but not repurchased when it contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If Kawasaki is unable to repair the defective half-fairings on H1 and H2 models, the law requires that it replace them 'without charge with . . .identical or reasonably equivalent' items of replacement equipment. 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(B). Replacement may involve the design of a new half-fairing by Kawasaki or provision of a similar item of equipment produced by another manufacturer.; Thank you for your inquiry. Should you have any questions with regar to these matters, please contact the undersigned at 202-426- 9511.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting 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: aiam1942 Open Mr. Donald W. Segraves, Vice President, American Mutual Insurance Alliance, 20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606; Mr. Donald W. Segraves Vice President American Mutual Insurance Alliance 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago IL 60606; Dear Mr. Segraves: This is in response to your letter of May 9, 1975, expressing you opposition to any bumper requirement that would permit the elimination of the energy absorbers from motor vehicle bumper systems.; Your letter refers to a statement made by Mr. James Schultz in a May 7 1975, letter responding to your request for information concerning the cost-benefit trade-off involved in permitting damage to the bumper face bar components and associated fasteners. Mr. Schultz's comment that 'the proposed schedule for implementation of the surface damage criteria would not effect a lowering of the current level of bumper performance' was directed only at the exterior surface damage provisions which are proposed as part of a Part 581 damageability standard under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513).; With regard to the provisions of Standard No. 215, Exterio Protection, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's action to reduce the number of required longitudinal pendulum impacts was taken to bring the test requirements more in line with real-world conditions. As was explained in the May 7 letter, the number of required pendulum impacts has been revised to conform to the average number of low-speed impacts a vehicle will encounter in its lifetime. The ability of a vehicle to comply with the pendulum test requirements will therefore assure its ability to withstand the number of low-speed collisions in which it is likely to be involved.; We are not able to predict whether the reduced number of impacts wil enable removal of the energy absorbing devices from the bumper system. Nissan has stated that they will not be able to eliminate the energy absorbers. However, it remains possible that some manufacturers could at least reduce the size of the components.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5261 Open Mr. James E. Walker III Manager, LSI Laboratories Lighting Sciences, Inc. 7830 E. Evans Road Scottsdale, AZ 85260; Mr. James E. Walker III Manager LSI Laboratories Lighting Sciences Inc. 7830 E. Evans Road Scottsdale AZ 85260; Dear Mr. Walker: We are replying to your letter of October 4, 1993 with respect to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for taillamps. You believe that a discrepancy exists because paragraph S5.1.1 'requires equipment to be designed to Tables I, II you mean III , and S7, which references SAE J585e for the Tail Lamp,' whereas paragraph S5.1.1.11 'requires Table 1 of this specification to be substituted for the values achieved by Figures 1a and 1b, and in addition, to substitute Table 1 of SAE J585e by the values achieved by multiplying the percentages of Figure 1a by Table 1 and 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps.' You assume that the photometric requirements are those of Figure 1a, 1b, and 1c. Your assumption is correct. However, there is no discrepancy in the standard. The requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are set forth in Section S5. Paragraph S5.1.1 requires lighting equipment to comply with the SAE materials contained in the tables, except as may be provided in succeeding paragraphs of Paragraph S5.1.1. Tables I and III incorporate by reference SAE Standard J585e, Tail Lamps, September 1977. However, on March 3, 1993, NHTSA redesignated Paragraph S5.1.1.11 (with its references to Figures 1a and 1b) as S5.1.1.6, and revised it to include, among other things, the reference in paragraph S5.1.1.12 to Figure 1c. The same notice removed paragraph S5.1.1.12 from the standard. New Paragraph S5.1.1.6 states that instead of the photometric values specified in Table 1 of SAE J585e, taillamps shall comply with those of Figures 1a, 1b and 1c. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information, and hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;
ID: aiam2734 Open Mr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P. O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P. O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your October 24, 1977, letter asking whether th framework of a roof hatch must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.; The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of th standard to a particular section of school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) that encloses occupant space in a bus comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the frame of a roof hatch, it appears that this joint need not comply with the requirements. This conclusion is reached because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that a roof hatch is equivalent to a door or window for the purposes of the application of the requirements. The joint connecting the frame of a door, window, or roof hatch to a bus body falls within the exception to the applicability of Standard No. 221.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2378 Open Mr. Ray W. Murphy, Director, Research and Development, Freightliner Corporation, 4747 N. Channel Avenue, P.O. Box 3849, Portland, OR 97208; Mr. Ray W. Murphy Director Research and Development Freightliner Corporation 4747 N. Channel Avenue P.O. Box 3849 Portland OR 97208; Dear Mr. Murphy: This responds to your July 23, 1976, question whether the 'no lockup requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the 'no lockup' performance is provided by means of an antilock system. Sections S5.3.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.3.2 (trailers) specify that the vehicle shall, under various load, road surface, and speed conditions, be capable of stopping; >>>. . .without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for: (a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system. . . (b)<<< This basic requirement is stated in performance terms, permitting manufacturer to choose any brake system design that will ensure that the wheels do not lock up under the specified conditions.; The exception to the 'no lockup' requirement set forth above permit 'controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system.' Manufacturers demonstrated, during the course of rulemaking, that properly functioning antilock systems might be designed to allow wheel lockup for a fraction of a second, and that antilock design should not be inhibited by a prohibition on all lockup. The agency made the 'controlled lockup' exception a part of the standard (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971) and has subsequently interpreted the term to permit manufacturers latitude in the design of their systems.; In compliance with the basic requirement, most manufacturers hav equipped each axle of a vehicle with a valve to regulate the air pressure that applies the brakes, sensors at each wheel to send a signal when a wheel is locking up, and a logic module that receives the signals and instructs the valve when to release air pressure to prevent lockup ('axle-by-axle control'). Recently, some manufacturers have simplified their systems by utilizing only one valve and logic module to modulate the air supply to both axles of the typical tandem axle system found on many trucks and trailers ('tandem control'). Two approaches to wheel sensor placement have been used for tandem control systems. If it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only, knowing that reduced air pressure in response to a signal from the 'sensed' axle will also release the brakes on the 'unsensed' axle. In other cases, where it is not possible to predict which axle will lock first, tandem control systems may have sensors on all four wheels of the tandem.; In November 12, 1974, and March 7, 1975, letters of interpretation t Dana Corporation, the NHTSA confirmed that a manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. Thus, tandem control is not prohibited by the standard, regardless of the number of wheel speed sensors provided. When Dana asked if lockup on the unsensed axle of a single-axle sensor system would qualify for the 'controlled lockup' exception of the requirement, the agency said that it would not, reasoning that the logic module would not exert effective control over the lockup of the unsensed axle without benefit of input signals from wheels on that axle. Therefore, according to the Dana interpretation, the unsensed axle in a single-axle sensor system could not be allowed to lock at all, even momentarily, during the service brake stopping test. No data of actual performance was submitted with the Dana letter.; Your letter argues that the NHTSA's interpretation of 'controlle lockup' (to Dana Corporation) creates an anomalous and unjustified restriction on the use of 'tandem control.' Your submission, and data received by the agency from other interested persons, demonstrate that the Dana interpretation does not adequately reflect the degree of control which a single-axle sensor system actually can exert over the unsensed axle of a tandem system. Based on analysis of the submitted data, it appears that the amount of lockup permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the available antilock systems. While there is a measurable difference in stopping performance between 'axle-by-axle' control and 'tandem control,' the standard already permits either of these means to satisfy the requirements. When the narrower question of the performance difference between sensors on one or both axles is analyzed, it is apparent that virtually no difference exists in the stopping distance of vehicles equipped these two ways. The effective lateral stability available during a stop also appears comparable regardless of placement of sensors on one or both axles. A technical report summarizing these findings will be placed in the public docket as soon as possible.; For this reason, and based on review of test data unavailable at th time of the Dana interpretation, the agency concludes that its interpretation of 'controlled lockup' in response to the question posed by Dana should be, and is hereby, withdrawn. It is the agency's interpretation that the 'controlled lockup' exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2379 Open Mr. A. F. Hulverson, Vice President, Engineering, Fruehauf Division, Fruehauf Corporation, 10900 Harper Avenue, P.O. Box 238, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. A. F. Hulverson Vice President Engineering Fruehauf Division Fruehauf Corporation 10900 Harper Avenue P.O. Box 238 Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Hulverson: This responds to your August 17, 1976, question whether the 'no lockup requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the 'no lockup' performance is provided by means of an antilock system. Sections S5.3.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.3.2 (trailers) specify that the vehicle shall, under various load, road surface, and speed conditions, be capable of stopping; >>>. . .without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for: (a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system. . . (b)<<< This basic requirement is stated in performance terms, permitting manufacturer to choose any brake system design that will ensure that the wheels do not lock up under the specified conditions.; The exception to the 'no lockup' requirement set forth above permit 'controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system.' Manufacturers demonstrated, during the course of rulemaking, that properly functioning antilock systems might be designed to allow wheel lockup for a fraction of a second, and that antilock design should not be inhibited by a prohibition on all lockup. The agency made the 'controlled lockup' exception a part of the standard (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971) and has subsequently interpreted the term to permit manufacturers latitude in the design of their systems.; In compliance with the basic requirement, most manufacturers hav equipped each axle of a vehicle with a valve to regulate the air pressure that applies the brakes, sensors at each wheel to send a signal when a wheel is locking up, and a logic module that receives the signals and instructs the valve when to release air pressure to prevent lockup ('axle-by-axle control'). Recently, some manufacturers have simplified their systems by utilizing only one valve and logic module to modulate the air supply to both axles of the typical tandem axle system found on many trucks and trailers ('tandem control'). Two approaches to wheel sensor placement have been used for tandem control systems. If it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only, knowing that reduced air pressure in response to a signal from the 'sensed' axle will also release the brakes on the 'unsensed' axle. In other cases, where it is not possible to predict which axle will lock first, tandem control systems may have sensors on all four wheels of the tandem.; In November 12, 1974, and March 7, 1975, letters of interpretation t Dana Corporation, the NHTSA confirmed that a manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. Thus, tandem control is not prohibited by the standard, regardless of the number of wheel speed sensors provided. When Dana asked if lockup on the unsensed axle of a single-axle sensor system would qualify for the 'controlled lockup' exception of the requirement, the agency said that it would not, reasoning that the logic module would not exert effective control over the lockup of the unsensed axle without benefit of input signals from wheels on that axle. Therefore, according to the Dana interpretation, the unsensed axle in a single-axle sensor system could not be allowed to lock at all, even momentarily, during the service brake stopping test. No data of actual performance was submitted with the Dana letter.; Your letter argues that the NHTSA's interpretation of 'controlle lockup' (to Dana Corporation) creates an anomalous and unjustified restriction on the use of 'tandem control.' Your submission, and data received by the agency from other interested persons, demonstrate that the Dana interpretation does not adequately reflect the degree of control which a single-axle sensor system actually can exert over the unsensed axle of a tandem system. Based on analysis of the submitted data, it appears that the amount of lockup permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the available antilock systems. While there is a measurable difference in stopping performance between 'axle-by-axle' control and 'tandem control,' the standard already permits either of these means to satisfy the requirements. When the narrower question of the performance difference between sensors on one or both axles is analyzed, it is apparent that virtually no difference exists in the stopping distance of vehicles equipped these two ways. The effective lateral stability available during a stop also appears comparable regardless of placement of sensors on one or both axles. A technical report summarizing these findings will be placed in the public docket as soon as possible.; For this reason, and based on review of test data unavailable at th time of the Dana interpretation, the agency concludes that its interpretation of 'controlled lockup' in response to the question posed by Dana should be, and is hereby, withdrawn. It is the agency's interpretation that the 'controlled lockup' exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2345 Open James H. Gross, Esq., Messrs. Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, 1701 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; James H. Gross Esq. Messrs. Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease 1701 K Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Gross: This is in response to your letter of June 15, 1976, concerning 49 CF Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.; As we understand the situation, Geo. Byers Sons, Inc., ('Byers') ha imported 988 motorcycles whose tires were manufactured by VEB REIFENKONBINAT ('VEB'), a corporation in the German Democratic Republic. VEB has to date failed to apply for a manufacturer's designation and to mark the tires supplied with the motorcycles in accordance with Part 574. Consequently, Byers wishes to apply for an identification mark on behalf of the manufacturer and itself carry out Part 574 marking requirements.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 defines manufacturer to include a person importing motor vehicles for resale. As a statutory manufacturer, the importer of record could become responsible for insuring compliance with Part 574. We understand that the importer of record is East-Europe Export, Inc., but that there is a serious question of East-Europe's continuation as a corporation and, consequently, the ability of the NHTSA to require East-Europe to satisfy the requirements of Part 574. Therefore, although not expressly permitted by the regulation, we would not object in this instance to Byers, as the distributor of the motorcycles, applying in its own name for a manufacturer's tire identification mark (so long as it is willing to accept the responsibility for carrying out the requirements of Part 574). Because of the recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, we would not permit Byers to apply for an identification mark, on behalf of VEB itself, without showing that VEB intended to fulfill the requirements of Part 574.; In any event, VEB must submit a designation of an agent for service o process as required by Section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR 551.45.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2319 Open Mr. G. Buzzi-Ferraris, Technical Manager, Pirelli Tire Corporation, 600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016; Mr. G. Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager Pirelli Tire Corporation 600 Third Avenue New York New York 10016; Dear Mr. Buzzi-Ferraris: I am writing in response to your March 12, 1976, letter to Mr. Rober Aubuchon of this agency, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.; You have inquired whether such vehicles may be equipped with tires tha --; >>>(i) 'Carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus th marking 'MAX SPEED' because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH -- S.6.5.'; (ii) 'Have passed the endurance test -- S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance wit table III --- speed restricted service: 35 MPH'; (iii) 'have not been tested for high speed S.6.3-- in fact they ar speed restricted ...'<<<; an otherwise comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119. I assume that, where your letter refers to the marking 'MAX SPEED', yo intended 'MAX SPEED 35 MPH'. Although such labeling is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Tires for motor driven cycles are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires. In particular, the schedule for endurance testing is that found in the 'motorcycle' entry of Table III, rather than the '35 m.p.h.' entry. Similarly, these tires are subject to the high speed performance requirements of S.6.3 without exception. An amendment of Standard No. 119 on this subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.; Standard No. 119 prohibits the manufacture of the tires that you hav described on and after March 1, 1975. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles equipped with such tires on and after September 1, 1976.; Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2591 Open Mr. Thomas E. Niehaus, 329 Miller Court, Harrison OH 45030; Mr. Thomas E. Niehaus 329 Miller Court Harrison OH 45030; Dear Mr. Niehaus: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1977, asking whethe Federal requirements specify that motor vehicle bumpers must be equipped with a rubber stripping.; Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, is a motor vehicle safet standard promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That standard requires that passenger cars be capable of undergoing 5 mph front and rear impacts without incurring damage to certain specified safety systems. Motor vehicle manufacturers are permitted to meet the performance level prescribed by Standard 215 in whatever manner they choose. Most, however, have elected to meet the requirements by improving the strength of the vehicle bumper system. Although a rubber bumper strip is not specifically required by the standard, a manufacturer may use such a component as a means of meeting the prescribed performance level.; All 1977 model year cars must be capable of meeting the requirements o Standard 215. This includes those which are equipped with an optional bumper system and those which are not.; If we can provide you with any further information, please let us know. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5417 Open William R. Willen, Esq. Managing Counsel American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 1919 Torrance Boulevard Torrance, CA 90501-2746; William R. Willen Esq. Managing Counsel American Honda Motor Co. Inc. 1919 Torrance Boulevard Torrance CA 90501-2746; "Dear Mr. Willen: We have received your 'Petition for Honda Electri Vehicles in accordance with FMVSS 555.6(c)' (correctly, 49 CFR 555.6(c)), dated June 28, 1994. The petition is incomplete in certain respects. It fails to provide the public interest and traffic safety arguments required by 555.5(b)(7). Section 555.6(c)(2)(iii) requires the submission of 'the results of any tests conducted on the vehicle that demonstrate its failure to meet the standard, expressed as comparative performance levels.' You have provided this information with respect to your request for exemption from Standard No. 103 but not with respect to the eight interior components that accompany your request for exemption from Standard No. 302. If you have conducted tests on these components, yuou are required to submit them as part of your petition. In addition, the petition does not state whether the period for which exemption is requested is for one or two years (you may need the latter if the manufacture of the 20 electric vehicles is not completed within a year from the date of grant of the petition). If the vehicles are manufactured outside the United States, Honda may wish to avail itself of the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(j) which allows a manufacturer to import noncomplying vehicles for purposes of research, investigation, and studies for a period of up to three years (when the temporary importation bond must be paid). After payment of the bond, a manufacturer may request NHTSA for an extension if it requires further time to complete its tests and evaluations. We shall hold your petition in abeyance until we hear further from you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2071 Open Mr. Dennis E. David, Manager, Legislative Section, Kawasaki Motors Corporation, U.S.A., 1062 McCaw Avenue, P.O. Box 11447, Santa Ana, CA 92711; Mr. Dennis E. David Manager Legislative Section Kawasaki Motors Corporation U.S.A. 1062 McCaw Avenue P.O. Box 11447 Santa Ana CA 92711; Dear Mr. David: Your letter of August 22, 1975, addressed to Mr. Robert F. Hellmuth Office of Defects Investigation, has been referred to this office for reply. You have identified all model year Kawasaki motorcycles models KZ400, H1, H2, and Z1 equipped with Kawasaki accessory half-fairing installed as containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. The defect involves the fatigue failure of the mounting bracket which attaches the half- fairing to the motorcycle.; Kawasaki has developed a new bracket for the KZ400 and Z1 models an intends to repair those models by installing the new bracket in place of the old. However, you have indicated that Kawasaki has been unsuccessful in developing a satisfactory mounting bracket for the models H1 and H2.; Based on the above facts, you have addressed two questions to th agency which will be answered in the order presented.; >>>1. To facilitate replacement of the mounting brackets on the model KZ400 and Z1, we intend to ship the newly designed parts to the Kawasaki Dealer nearest to the owner of the motorcycle. It is then our intention to direct the owner to go to this dealer for the replacement.; Question: Is it allowable for us to so direct the owner, and if so, ma such directions be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to Part 577, Defect Notification?<<<; Answer - It is allowable for Kawasaki to so direct the owner, an such directions may be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 577.; >>>2. Is it allowable to repurchase the half-fairing from the owners o the models H1 and H2 (estimated quantity 25 total for both models), and if so, is it allowable for Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. to contact these customers by telephone prior to sending a notification letter as required by Part 577?<<<; Answer - Unfortunately, it is not allowable to repurchase th half-fairing from the owners of the H1 and H2 models. The half-fairings are items of 'motor vehicle equipment' as defined in section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S 1391(4) hereinafter 'the Act'). Congress has explicitly limited the options of manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. While repurchase of a motor vehicle is permissible when a safety related defect is contained therein, such is not the case when the defect is contained in an item of motor vehicle equipment. Compare 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(A) with 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(b), accord H.R. Rep. No. 1452, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 26-29 (1974).; Half-fairings can make a safety contribution by shielding the ride from flying stones or other small debris and reducing driver fatigue on long trips. It is therefore reasonable that Congress would require that such equipment be either repaired or replaced but not repurchased when it contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If Kawasaki is unable to repair the defective half-fairings on H1 and H2 models, the law requires that it replace them 'without charge with . . .identical or reasonably equivalent' items of replacement equipment. 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(B). Replacement may involve the design of a new half-fairing by Kawasaki or provision of a similar item of equipment produced by another manufacturer.; Thank you for your inquiry. Should you have any questions with regar to these matters, please contact the undersigned at 202-426- 9511.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting 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: aiam1942

ID: aiam5261

ID: aiam2734

ID: aiam2378

ID: aiam2379

ID: aiam2345

ID: aiam2319

ID: aiam2591

ID: aiam5417

ID: aiam2071

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?