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 8261 - 8270 of 16490

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam2162 Open Mr. Melvin R. Stahl, Vice President, Government Regulations, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., 1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, DC, 20036; Mr. Melvin R. Stahl Vice President Government Regulations Motorcycle Industry Council Inc. 1001 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Stahl: This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1975, asking whethe Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which permits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles whose top speed is 30 mph, without turn signal lamps, preempts a State requirement that all motor vehicles be equipped with such lamps.; The answer to your question is yes. Even though a State as in you hypothetical may not have defined 'motor vehicle,' or its definition of a vehicle category differs from a definition in 49 CFR 571.3(b) (e.g. where a State defines a motor-driven cycle as a 'bicycle'), it is preempted by Section 103(d) from establishing or maintaining in effect a safety standard that differs from a Federal standard covering the same aspect of performance. Accordingly, since S 4.1.1.26 of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment excuses low speed motor- driven cycles from the requirement that they be equipped with turn signal lamps, a State cannot require them on identical vehicles.; I hope this answers your question. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0883 Open Mr. John L. McLaughlin, Registrar, Department of Motor Vehicles, Division of Registration, P.O. Box 1319, Sacramento, CA 95806; Mr. John L. McLaughlin Registrar Department of Motor Vehicles Division of Registration P.O. Box 1319 Sacramento CA 95806; Dear Mr. McLaughlin: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1972, on the subjec of potential conflict between the California statute regulating passenger car bumpers and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection.; On October 20, 1972, the President signed into law the Motor Vehicl Information and Cost Savings Act (P.L.92-513). One effect of this act will be to allow a State bumper standard that relates to property damage to coexist with a Federal safety standard if it is is not in conflict with' the Federal standard.; We do not find that there is a 'conflict' between the Californi statute and the Federal standard with respect to the language underlined in your letter. As a practical matter, the difference between the SAE J-850 test barrier specified by California and the fixed collision barrier specified in our standard is slight. Most test barriers will conform to the significant aspect of both specifications. This would not appear to be the degree of difference that could be termed a 'conflict' under the new Act.; Please advise us if you have further questions on this subject. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1462 Open Mr. Ronald P. Moeller, Product Development Engineer, Conco, Incorporated, Mendota, IL 61342; Mr. Ronald P. Moeller Product Development Engineer Conco Incorporated Mendota IL 61342; Dear Mr. Moeller: This is in response to your letter to Mr. W. J. Reinhart, dated Marc 26. In this letter you requested that the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) reconsider the necessity of your revising the notification letters which were mailed by you in conjunction with your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 74-0038).; We have determined that your notification letter must be revised an that you must provide this office, and those owners who did not correct their vehicles, with a copy, sent certified mail, of the revised letter. It is not sufficient under Part 577 for you to state that a 'safety hazard' exists 'due to a decrease in visibility of the vehicle.' This statement fails to conform to section 577.4(d) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577). That section provides that the risk to traffic safety presented by the defect be evaluated in terms of whether or not vehicle crash is the potential occurrence.We believe it obvious within the context of Part 577 that the potential result of the failure of any vehicle to conform to the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108 is vehicle crash. The factors you cite, that the vehicles have limited use, go only to whether it is likely they may be involved in crashes, not whether crash is the potential or possible result. In this regard, we note that your own description of the likelihood of crash does not preclude the possibility that crash can occur.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam1930 Open Mr. Richard Schlichting, President, Toledo Clutch & Brake Service, Inc., 2112-24 Monroe Street, Toledo, OH 43624; Mr. Richard Schlichting President Toledo Clutch & Brake Service Inc. 2112-24 Monroe Street Toledo OH 43624; Dear Mr. Schlichting: This responds to your April 21, 1975, questions whether a 121-equippe chassis must be certified to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, after installation of a tractor conversion kit, whether an antilock wiring harness may be spliced for purposes of frame extension, whether additional weight (such as a body) or an axle may be added to a vehicle after it is sold and put into use, and whether the standard regulates the replacement of worn brake components. You state that it should be assumed that the vehicle has been delivered to the first user.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits th manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or importation of a vehicle which does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of manufacture. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). However, the Act also provides that this prohibition no longer applies to a vehicle (except in the case of importation) after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale. (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). The Act also prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or design (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).; These provisions mean that the manufacturer of the vehicle must assum responsibility for compliance and certification. Most trucks are built in several stages and completed by final-stage manufacturers like yourself. Cab-chassis are only incomplete vehicles which have not been certified, and therefore, whoever completes the vehicle and subsequently sells it or introduces it on the public highway must certify its compliance. In answer to your first question, it is the responsibility of the person who installs the fifth wheel, tractor protection system, etc., to certify compliance, whether or not the vehicle has been delivered to the first user. The owner himself would qualify as a final-stage manufacturer if he installed the conversion kit.; In answer to your third and fourth questions, the installation would b subject to certification unless it followed 'the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' 'Good faith' means that the first user could not, for example, buy a completed vehicle, drive it around the block and then install a non-conforming tag axle. Installation of a body after delivery to the first purchaser without compliance with Standard No. 121 would in most cases not appear to be good faith because the vehicle is not capable of use without the body.; It is permissible to make modifications to a vehicle that is already i service after the first purchase in good faith. A private party may make any change, but as noted above, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business such as yours cannot 'knowingly render inoperative' a safety device in the process of modification. In answer to question number five, Standard No. 121 regulates the manufacture of new vehicles only and does not contain provisions which limit use of replacement parts. The only restriction in replacement would be to avoid knowingly rendering inoperative safety devices or design.; In answer to question number three, the standard establishe performance levels and does not contain any design requirements concerning the wiring harness of antilock systems. We would advise that you contact the antilock manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer as to the wisdom of splicing antilock wiring.; For your information, I enclose a discussion of the standard whic addresses final-stage manufacture at page seven.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0164 Open Mr. W.J. Sears, Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association, 1346 ConnecticutAvenue(sic), N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. W.J. Sears Vice President Rubber Manufacturers Association 1346 ConnecticutAvenue(sic) N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Sears: This will acknowledge your letter of May 14, 1969, to the Nationa Highway Safety Bureau requesting the addition of the 6JJ alternative rim size for the E78-14 tire size designation to Table I of Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.; On the basis of the data submitted indicating compliance with th requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 and other information submitted in accordance with the procedural guidelines set forth in the Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 195, Page 14964, dated October 5, 1968, the 6JJ alternative rim size for the E78-14 tire size designation will be listed within Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 110. This change will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.; The addition of new alternative rim size designations to the table i accomplished through an abbreviated procedure consisting of the publication in the Federal Register of petitioned alternative rim size. If no comments are received, the amendment becomes effective 30 days from the date of publication. If comments objecting to amendments are received, additional rule making pursuant to Part 216 of the Procedural Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will be considered.; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;
ID: aiam1875 Open Mr. Jeffrey A. Burt, Arnold and Porter, 1229 Nineteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Jeffrey A. Burt Arnold and Porter 1229 Nineteenth Street NW. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Burt: This is in response to your letter of April 22 regarding a propose defect notification letter by the Whittaker Corporation.; In our opinion, the proposed letter does not comply with the defec notification regulation (49 CFR, Part 577) and section 153 of the 1974 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The specific areas of nonconformance are:; >>>1. The second sentence must be stated in the form and order a required by section 577.4(b), that is, you must add 'defect--which relates to motor vehicle safety--exists.'; 2. The first sentence in the fourth paragraph referring to the fac that no accidents have been reported could be construed as a disclaimer, and is therefore prohibited by section 577.6.; 3. Since owners may inspect these wheels themselves in lieu of having dealer perform the inspection, it is necessary to provide the owner with a return post card so the owner can certify that the wheels were inspected and do not contain a defect or were exchanged for new wheels.; 4. It is necessary to inform the owner that in the event th manufacturer, dealer or distributor is unable or fails to remedy the defect without charge, the owner may notify the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590. This is required by section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment.; If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr James Murray of my staff at 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam3982 Open Mr. Thomas J. Moravec, President, Tow-All, Inc., 10501 E. Bloomington Freeway, Bloomington, MN 55420; Mr. Thomas J. Moravec President Tow-All Inc. 10501 E. Bloomington Freeway Bloomington MN 55420; Dear Mr. Moravec: This responds to your letter of May 20, 1985, concerning Federa requirements applicable to the motorized hitch or 'Supplemental Power Unit' (SPU) being developed by your company.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq. (the Act). Under the Act, a motor vehicle is defined as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways.' You letter states that the SPU is a motorized single axle unit with an automatic transmission. In addition, your letter, the accompanying photographs, and descriptive material indicate that the SPU could be attached between a small car and a large trailer to permit the small car to safely pull the trailer long distances at highway speeds.; Based on this information, the agency concludes that the SPU is a moto vehicle and falls within the trailer classification. Under 49 CFR Part 571.3, a trailer is defined as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle.' An information sheet for manufacturers is enclosed.; The following regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standard are applicable to trailers:; >>>49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Conten Requirements; 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (see S567.4 for trailers) Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Tha Passenger Tires (sic); Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Tha Passenger Tires (sic); Standard No. 121, Air Brake System (sic)<<< Copies of these regulations and standards can be obtained by writin to: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. An information sheet for ordering copies is also enclosed.; State regulations applying to trailers and their use on the road should be checked for any State in which your company's trailers are to be sold.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1689 Open Mr. Curtis Eddy, Vice President - Engineering, Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation, P. O. Box 7385, Nashville, TN 37210; Mr. Curtis Eddy Vice President - Engineering Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation P. O. Box 7385 Nashville TN 37210; Dear Mr. Eddy: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 74-0203) concerning trailers equipped with Standard Forge axles which may have defective brake shoes.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject trailer does not completely meet the requirements of Part 577(49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter describes the defect as existing in the brake shoes. Part 577.4(b), however, requires that in cases where a vehicle manufacturer is notifying owners of vehicles, the letter must state that a defect exists in the vehicle itself. The reference to motor vehicle equipment applies only to equipment campaigns where vehicles are not directly involved. Your letter also fails to adequately evaluate the risk to traffic safety as required by Part 577.4(d) since it does not state that the vehicle crash without warning may occur. Although the statement that reduced braking power or lockup may result may suggest the possibility of a crash to many owners, it is not entirely adequate.; Although mailing of a revised notification letter will not be required it is expected that in the event that another defect notification campaign ever becomes necessary in the future, the notification letters conform completely with the regulations.; A copy of Part 577 is enclosed. If you desire further information please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426- 2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam2200 Open Ms. Mary Harding, Director--Outreach Program, 615 Texas Street, Ft. Worth, TX 76102; Ms. Mary Harding Director--Outreach Program 615 Texas Street Ft. Worth TX 76102; Dear Ms. Harding: The Fort Worth Regional Office of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) has forwarded to us your February 2, 1976, letter asking whether 16- passenger van-type school buses that presently serve to transport children to and from a day care center fall within the new definition of 'School bus' recently issued by the NHTSA (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975).; The answer to your question is no. The definition is based on th regulatory authority found in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1381 et seq.). This Act authorizes the regulation of motor vehicle construction in accordance with standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture.; In the case of this amendment of the definition, the NHTSA chose t make the new definition effective on October 27, 1976, to correspond with the effective date of the new school bus standards. This means that the existing definition of 'School bus' applied at the time of the construction of the vehicles operated by your library. The existing definition applies only to vehicles designed primarily to carry children to and from school, and would not include van- type vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2633 Open Mr. John A. McLaine, Chief, Automotive Engineering Standards, State of New Jersey, Division of Motor Vehicles, 25 South Montgomery Street, Trenton, NJ 08666; Mr. John A. McLaine Chief Automotive Engineering Standards State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles 25 South Montgomery Street Trenton NJ 08666; Dear Mr. McLaine: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of thi office, asking for our comments on the flashing of ambulance headlamps for signaling purposes. You enclosed a copy of a Bulletin dated June 27, 1977, that New Jersey recently sent to its Inspection Stations advising rejection of ambulances equipped with headlamp flashing devices.; Paragraph S4.6(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that lamps other than turn signals, hazard warning signals, and school bus warning signals be steady-burning in use, 'except that means may be provided to [automatically] flash headlamps . . . for signaling purposes.' The purpose of the exception was to allow continued use of automatic flashing devices in jurisdictions where it was permitted when the standard was adopted, for without the exception manufacture and sale of vehicles so equipped would have violated the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The exception provided by S4.6(b) has a preemptive effect only in that a State cannot forbid the sale and registration of a vehicle equipped with a flashing device, but there is no restriction on a State's authority to forbid the use of such mechanisms when it deems it in the interests of traffic safety to do so.; Thus, we have no objection to New Jersey's Bulletin of June 27, 1977. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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: aiam2162 Open Mr. Melvin R. Stahl, Vice President, Government Regulations, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., 1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, DC, 20036; Mr. Melvin R. Stahl Vice President Government Regulations Motorcycle Industry Council Inc. 1001 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Stahl: This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1975, asking whethe Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which permits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles whose top speed is 30 mph, without turn signal lamps, preempts a State requirement that all motor vehicles be equipped with such lamps.; The answer to your question is yes. Even though a State as in you hypothetical may not have defined 'motor vehicle,' or its definition of a vehicle category differs from a definition in 49 CFR 571.3(b) (e.g. where a State defines a motor-driven cycle as a 'bicycle'), it is preempted by Section 103(d) from establishing or maintaining in effect a safety standard that differs from a Federal standard covering the same aspect of performance. Accordingly, since S 4.1.1.26 of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment excuses low speed motor- driven cycles from the requirement that they be equipped with turn signal lamps, a State cannot require them on identical vehicles.; I hope this answers your question. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0883 Open Mr. John L. McLaughlin, Registrar, Department of Motor Vehicles, Division of Registration, P.O. Box 1319, Sacramento, CA 95806; Mr. John L. McLaughlin Registrar Department of Motor Vehicles Division of Registration P.O. Box 1319 Sacramento CA 95806; Dear Mr. McLaughlin: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1972, on the subjec of potential conflict between the California statute regulating passenger car bumpers and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection.; On October 20, 1972, the President signed into law the Motor Vehicl Information and Cost Savings Act (P.L.92-513). One effect of this act will be to allow a State bumper standard that relates to property damage to coexist with a Federal safety standard if it is is not in conflict with' the Federal standard.; We do not find that there is a 'conflict' between the Californi statute and the Federal standard with respect to the language underlined in your letter. As a practical matter, the difference between the SAE J-850 test barrier specified by California and the fixed collision barrier specified in our standard is slight. Most test barriers will conform to the significant aspect of both specifications. This would not appear to be the degree of difference that could be termed a 'conflict' under the new Act.; Please advise us if you have further questions on this subject. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1462 Open Mr. Ronald P. Moeller, Product Development Engineer, Conco, Incorporated, Mendota, IL 61342; Mr. Ronald P. Moeller Product Development Engineer Conco Incorporated Mendota IL 61342; Dear Mr. Moeller: This is in response to your letter to Mr. W. J. Reinhart, dated Marc 26. In this letter you requested that the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) reconsider the necessity of your revising the notification letters which were mailed by you in conjunction with your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 74-0038).; We have determined that your notification letter must be revised an that you must provide this office, and those owners who did not correct their vehicles, with a copy, sent certified mail, of the revised letter. It is not sufficient under Part 577 for you to state that a 'safety hazard' exists 'due to a decrease in visibility of the vehicle.' This statement fails to conform to section 577.4(d) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577). That section provides that the risk to traffic safety presented by the defect be evaluated in terms of whether or not vehicle crash is the potential occurrence.We believe it obvious within the context of Part 577 that the potential result of the failure of any vehicle to conform to the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108 is vehicle crash. The factors you cite, that the vehicles have limited use, go only to whether it is likely they may be involved in crashes, not whether crash is the potential or possible result. In this regard, we note that your own description of the likelihood of crash does not preclude the possibility that crash can occur.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam1930 Open Mr. Richard Schlichting, President, Toledo Clutch & Brake Service, Inc., 2112-24 Monroe Street, Toledo, OH 43624; Mr. Richard Schlichting President Toledo Clutch & Brake Service Inc. 2112-24 Monroe Street Toledo OH 43624; Dear Mr. Schlichting: This responds to your April 21, 1975, questions whether a 121-equippe chassis must be certified to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, after installation of a tractor conversion kit, whether an antilock wiring harness may be spliced for purposes of frame extension, whether additional weight (such as a body) or an axle may be added to a vehicle after it is sold and put into use, and whether the standard regulates the replacement of worn brake components. You state that it should be assumed that the vehicle has been delivered to the first user.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits th manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or importation of a vehicle which does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of manufacture. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). However, the Act also provides that this prohibition no longer applies to a vehicle (except in the case of importation) after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale. (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). The Act also prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or design (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).; These provisions mean that the manufacturer of the vehicle must assum responsibility for compliance and certification. Most trucks are built in several stages and completed by final-stage manufacturers like yourself. Cab-chassis are only incomplete vehicles which have not been certified, and therefore, whoever completes the vehicle and subsequently sells it or introduces it on the public highway must certify its compliance. In answer to your first question, it is the responsibility of the person who installs the fifth wheel, tractor protection system, etc., to certify compliance, whether or not the vehicle has been delivered to the first user. The owner himself would qualify as a final-stage manufacturer if he installed the conversion kit.; In answer to your third and fourth questions, the installation would b subject to certification unless it followed 'the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' 'Good faith' means that the first user could not, for example, buy a completed vehicle, drive it around the block and then install a non-conforming tag axle. Installation of a body after delivery to the first purchaser without compliance with Standard No. 121 would in most cases not appear to be good faith because the vehicle is not capable of use without the body.; It is permissible to make modifications to a vehicle that is already i service after the first purchase in good faith. A private party may make any change, but as noted above, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business such as yours cannot 'knowingly render inoperative' a safety device in the process of modification. In answer to question number five, Standard No. 121 regulates the manufacture of new vehicles only and does not contain provisions which limit use of replacement parts. The only restriction in replacement would be to avoid knowingly rendering inoperative safety devices or design.; In answer to question number three, the standard establishe performance levels and does not contain any design requirements concerning the wiring harness of antilock systems. We would advise that you contact the antilock manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer as to the wisdom of splicing antilock wiring.; For your information, I enclose a discussion of the standard whic addresses final-stage manufacture at page seven.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0164 Open Mr. W.J. Sears, Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association, 1346 ConnecticutAvenue(sic), N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. W.J. Sears Vice President Rubber Manufacturers Association 1346 ConnecticutAvenue(sic) N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Sears: This will acknowledge your letter of May 14, 1969, to the Nationa Highway Safety Bureau requesting the addition of the 6JJ alternative rim size for the E78-14 tire size designation to Table I of Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.; On the basis of the data submitted indicating compliance with th requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 and other information submitted in accordance with the procedural guidelines set forth in the Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 195, Page 14964, dated October 5, 1968, the 6JJ alternative rim size for the E78-14 tire size designation will be listed within Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 110. This change will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.; The addition of new alternative rim size designations to the table i accomplished through an abbreviated procedure consisting of the publication in the Federal Register of petitioned alternative rim size. If no comments are received, the amendment becomes effective 30 days from the date of publication. If comments objecting to amendments are received, additional rule making pursuant to Part 216 of the Procedural Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will be considered.; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;
ID: aiam1875 Open Mr. Jeffrey A. Burt, Arnold and Porter, 1229 Nineteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Jeffrey A. Burt Arnold and Porter 1229 Nineteenth Street NW. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Burt: This is in response to your letter of April 22 regarding a propose defect notification letter by the Whittaker Corporation.; In our opinion, the proposed letter does not comply with the defec notification regulation (49 CFR, Part 577) and section 153 of the 1974 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The specific areas of nonconformance are:; >>>1. The second sentence must be stated in the form and order a required by section 577.4(b), that is, you must add 'defect--which relates to motor vehicle safety--exists.'; 2. The first sentence in the fourth paragraph referring to the fac that no accidents have been reported could be construed as a disclaimer, and is therefore prohibited by section 577.6.; 3. Since owners may inspect these wheels themselves in lieu of having dealer perform the inspection, it is necessary to provide the owner with a return post card so the owner can certify that the wheels were inspected and do not contain a defect or were exchanged for new wheels.; 4. It is necessary to inform the owner that in the event th manufacturer, dealer or distributor is unable or fails to remedy the defect without charge, the owner may notify the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590. This is required by section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment.; If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr James Murray of my staff at 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam3982 Open Mr. Thomas J. Moravec, President, Tow-All, Inc., 10501 E. Bloomington Freeway, Bloomington, MN 55420; Mr. Thomas J. Moravec President Tow-All Inc. 10501 E. Bloomington Freeway Bloomington MN 55420; Dear Mr. Moravec: This responds to your letter of May 20, 1985, concerning Federa requirements applicable to the motorized hitch or 'Supplemental Power Unit' (SPU) being developed by your company.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq. (the Act). Under the Act, a motor vehicle is defined as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways.' You letter states that the SPU is a motorized single axle unit with an automatic transmission. In addition, your letter, the accompanying photographs, and descriptive material indicate that the SPU could be attached between a small car and a large trailer to permit the small car to safely pull the trailer long distances at highway speeds.; Based on this information, the agency concludes that the SPU is a moto vehicle and falls within the trailer classification. Under 49 CFR Part 571.3, a trailer is defined as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle.' An information sheet for manufacturers is enclosed.; The following regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standard are applicable to trailers:; >>>49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Conten Requirements; 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (see S567.4 for trailers) Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Tha Passenger Tires (sic); Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Tha Passenger Tires (sic); Standard No. 121, Air Brake System (sic)<<< Copies of these regulations and standards can be obtained by writin to: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. An information sheet for ordering copies is also enclosed.; State regulations applying to trailers and their use on the road should be checked for any State in which your company's trailers are to be sold.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1689 Open Mr. Curtis Eddy, Vice President - Engineering, Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation, P. O. Box 7385, Nashville, TN 37210; Mr. Curtis Eddy Vice President - Engineering Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation P. O. Box 7385 Nashville TN 37210; Dear Mr. Eddy: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 74-0203) concerning trailers equipped with Standard Forge axles which may have defective brake shoes.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject trailer does not completely meet the requirements of Part 577(49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter describes the defect as existing in the brake shoes. Part 577.4(b), however, requires that in cases where a vehicle manufacturer is notifying owners of vehicles, the letter must state that a defect exists in the vehicle itself. The reference to motor vehicle equipment applies only to equipment campaigns where vehicles are not directly involved. Your letter also fails to adequately evaluate the risk to traffic safety as required by Part 577.4(d) since it does not state that the vehicle crash without warning may occur. Although the statement that reduced braking power or lockup may result may suggest the possibility of a crash to many owners, it is not entirely adequate.; Although mailing of a revised notification letter will not be required it is expected that in the event that another defect notification campaign ever becomes necessary in the future, the notification letters conform completely with the regulations.; A copy of Part 577 is enclosed. If you desire further information please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426- 2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam2200 Open Ms. Mary Harding, Director--Outreach Program, 615 Texas Street, Ft. Worth, TX 76102; Ms. Mary Harding Director--Outreach Program 615 Texas Street Ft. Worth TX 76102; Dear Ms. Harding: The Fort Worth Regional Office of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) has forwarded to us your February 2, 1976, letter asking whether 16- passenger van-type school buses that presently serve to transport children to and from a day care center fall within the new definition of 'School bus' recently issued by the NHTSA (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975).; The answer to your question is no. The definition is based on th regulatory authority found in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1381 et seq.). This Act authorizes the regulation of motor vehicle construction in accordance with standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture.; In the case of this amendment of the definition, the NHTSA chose t make the new definition effective on October 27, 1976, to correspond with the effective date of the new school bus standards. This means that the existing definition of 'School bus' applied at the time of the construction of the vehicles operated by your library. The existing definition applies only to vehicles designed primarily to carry children to and from school, and would not include van- type vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2633 Open Mr. John A. McLaine, Chief, Automotive Engineering Standards, State of New Jersey, Division of Motor Vehicles, 25 South Montgomery Street, Trenton, NJ 08666; Mr. John A. McLaine Chief Automotive Engineering Standards State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles 25 South Montgomery Street Trenton NJ 08666; Dear Mr. McLaine: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of thi office, asking for our comments on the flashing of ambulance headlamps for signaling purposes. You enclosed a copy of a Bulletin dated June 27, 1977, that New Jersey recently sent to its Inspection Stations advising rejection of ambulances equipped with headlamp flashing devices.; Paragraph S4.6(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that lamps other than turn signals, hazard warning signals, and school bus warning signals be steady-burning in use, 'except that means may be provided to [automatically] flash headlamps . . . for signaling purposes.' The purpose of the exception was to allow continued use of automatic flashing devices in jurisdictions where it was permitted when the standard was adopted, for without the exception manufacture and sale of vehicles so equipped would have violated the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The exception provided by S4.6(b) has a preemptive effect only in that a State cannot forbid the sale and registration of a vehicle equipped with a flashing device, but there is no restriction on a State's authority to forbid the use of such mechanisms when it deems it in the interests of traffic safety to do so.; Thus, we have no objection to New Jersey's Bulletin of June 27, 1977. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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: aiam2162

ID: aiam0883

ID: aiam1462

ID: aiam1930

ID: aiam0164

ID: aiam1875

ID: aiam3982

ID: aiam1689

ID: aiam2200

ID: aiam2633

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?