NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam4689OpenMr. Joe W. Humphrey 10250 Goodman Road, #l0l Olive Branch, MS 38654; Mr. Joe W. Humphrey 10250 Goodman Road #l0l Olive Branch MS 38654; Dear Mr. Humphrey: This is in reply to your letter of November 9, 1990 with respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp. You have asked if it is acceptable to add amber turn signal lamps to each side of the center stop lamp. The answer is yes, if the turn signal lamps are separate from the stop lamp. Under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, the center stop lamp cannot be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4723OpenMr. Richard L. Martinez Santa Fe Insurance Agency, Inc. 231 Washington Avenue Santa Fe, NM 87501-1926; Mr. Richard L. Martinez Santa Fe Insurance Agency Inc. 231 Washington Avenue Santa Fe NM 87501-1926; "Re: Europa International, Inc. Dear Mr. Martinez: This is in reply t your letter of March 9, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to 'the $2,000 liability policy' that you discussed with him. You have asked four questions with respect to this subject on behalf of a client who intends to apply for recognition as a registered importer by this agency, and as an independent commercial importer (ICI) under EPA regulations. Initially, let me provide you with some background information. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically Title l5, United States Code, Section 1397(c)(3)(D)(ii), the Department of Transportation is required to prescribe by regulation 'provisions for ensuring that the registered importer (or any successor in interest) will be able technically and financially to carry out the importer's responsibilities under part B of this title (relating to discovery, notification, and remedy of defects).' These responsibilities primarily are to notify vehicle owners in the event that either a safety related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the owner's vehicle, and to remedy the situation. In developing a regulation to implement the statutory requirement, the agency examined the regulations of the EPA pertaining to ICIs. In a final rule published on September 25, l987 (52 FR 36136), EPA required ICIs to provide to vehicle or engine owners warranties, and to ensure that the warranties 'are insured by a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance company', and 'are transferable to each successive owner . . . .' (40 CFR 85.1510(b)(2)). In commenting on EPA's proposed regulation, the State of California had noted that CARB's own new regulation addressing non-conforming vehicles required modifiers to post a prepaid surety bond in the amount of $1,000 per vehicle to cover its obligation to perform recalls, or alternatively, to purchase insurance which will cover the modifier's recall obligation. The Department of Transportation, wishing to conform as closely as possible to procedures already in practice for grey market importers who were ICIs, proposed and adopted 49 CFR 592.6(h), requiring registered importers to 'maintain in effect a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance complany as a guarantor of its performance under paragraph (f) of this section.' (which relates to notification and remedy). With this background in mind, I shall reply to your four questions: '1. Is it required that the term of the policy be for eight years from the date of purchase/sale?' In essence, yes. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are required to provide remedy without charge for a period of 8 years following the first purchase of a vehicle (however, there is no limit on the time for notification). The general requirement for registered importers, established by Section 592.6(f)(2)(i), is that the obligation to provide remedy without charge shall not apply if the noncompliance or safety related defect exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after importation occurred more than 8 calendar years before notification respecting the failure to comply is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. However, during the 8-year period following sale after importation, the registered importer is not obligated to provide repair without charge if two factors are present. The first is that the condition is a safety related defect that is attributable solely to the original manufacturer of the vehicle, and not to the registered importer. The second is that the date of the original first purchase of the vehicle, if known, or, if not known, the date of manufacture, as determined by the Department of Transportation, is more than 8 years from the date on which notification is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. '2. The limit is $2,000. Would that apply annually or would it be for the entire eight-year period? The reason for this question is that the companies are wondering whether or not this is a cumulative limit, e.g., $2,000 x eight years = $16,000.' The purpose of the policy is to ensure that any noncompliance or safety related defect that is determined to exist in a vehicle may be remedied without charge to the vehicle owner. If the registered importer is financially unable to effect remedy, then the policy is intended to cover the cost of remedy. The most usual form of remedy is repair. Pursuant to comments received during the course of rulemaking that $2,000 appeared to be the uppermost sum necessary to repair a single noncompliance or safety related defect, the agency adopted section 592.5(a)(8) stating that the policy is 'in an amount that equals $2,000 for each motor vehicle . . . .' The answer to your question can be expressed in the following example. If a registered importer becomes insolvent in the second year following sale of the vehicle, for the next 6 years the policy should be available to any owner of the vehicle to cover the costs of repairing any safety related defect or noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle, with a limit of $2,000 on the cost of correcting any such defect or noncompliance covered by a single campaign. Records of past remedial campaigns are available if insurance companies wish to study the types of noncompliances and safety related defects that have occurred over the years, as well as the model and model years involved. In our judgment, the cost of each repair has been far less than $2,000. If repair is impossible, alternative forms of remedy established by statute are replacement with a vehicle of equivalent value, or repurchase of a vehicle. Obviously this form of remedy cannot occur if the registered importer has gone out of business. '3. You mentioned that the policy was to cover non-compliance or safety defect situations. What are areas to be covered: emissions controls, latent defects, brake problems, warranty situations such as drive train, etc.?' Each system, part, or component of a motor vehicle is covered by the remedial authority. If a component is part of a system necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle does not comply with that standard because of the design or manufacture of that component, replacement of the component with a satisfactory one would be the object of a remedial campaign. For example, if a vehicle could not meet the stopping distance requirement of Standard No. l05 Hydraulic Brake Systems, and that failure was due to the inadequacy of the brake lining, the object of the campaign would be to recall all affected vehicles and replace the brake lining with one by which the vehicle would comply. The statute defines a defect as one that is inclusive of any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. But only defects that are determined to be safety related require correction. The question of whether a defect is safety related depends upon the facts of the individual case. Generally, defects in emission controls are not safety related, nor are 'warranty situations such as drive trains'. Determinations of the existence of noncompliances or safety related defects are made by the registered importer, the Department of Transportation, or the original manufacturer of the vehicle. '4. Europa is looking into whether or not MBNA would provide a warranty policy for the G-wagon multipurpose passenger vehicle not sold in the United States as they currently do for their private passenger vehicles. The present warranty covers for a 12/12 plan. If they were to extend this, is it possible that that could be acceptable as an alternative to the $2,000 limit?' We doubt that MBNA would be willing to extend any type of warranty to a vehicle that is not originally manufactured by its parent company to comply with Federal safety standards, that it does not import, and that is not sold through its dealers. Further, such a vehicle could not be imported into the United States unless the Department of Transportation had determined that it was capable conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, assuming that the G-wagon is deemed eligible for entry and that MBNA is willing to extend a warranty to it, there is no legal reason why MBNA could not assume responsibility for remedial work without charge in the event the registered importer were unable to provide it, whether in the form of an express warranty, or other document. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1521OpenRobert Markowitz, Esq., Lieberman, Tratras & Markowitz, Shepherd Law Plaza Building, 1300 Shepherd Drive, Houston, TX 77007; Robert Markowitz Esq. Lieberman Tratras & Markowitz Shepherd Law Plaza Building 1300 Shepherd Drive Houston TX 77007; Dear Mr. Markowitz: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1974, enclosing a check fo $1,000 and a suggested defect notification letter on behalf of your client, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company.; The notification letter you enclose fails to conform in significan respects to 49 CFR Part 577, *Defect Notification*. The regulation presumes the notification will be sent by the manufacturer, as required by statute, and requires statements conforming to sections 577.4(a) and 577.4(b) to comprise the opening and second statements of the notification. We consider the format you have used, that of sending the letter in the name of an attorney for the company, to be inconsistent with this requirement. The first three sentences of the sample letter should thus be stricken. Moreover, section 577.4(b)(1) requires the vehicle or equipment which contain the defect to be identified in the second statement. Trailers are vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and not 'equipment.' We will accept as sufficient identification the year, model number if any, and the words 'utility trailer' in meeting section 577.4(b)(1). The reference to equipment is inappropriate in that it implies that the defect is in the lighting (which is equipment) rather than in the vehicle.; Your letter also fails to evaluate the risk to traffic safety a required by section 577.4(d). In most cases, the potential result of a failure to install required lighting is vehicle crash, and the notification should thus conform to section 577.4(d)(1).; We consider the second and third sentences of your second paragraph an the second sentence of your next to last paragraph ('This notification is intended . . .') to be disclaimers and prohibited by section 577.6. Each should be stricken.; The sample notification letter must be revised as set forth above t conform to Part 577. In addition, the defect report (49 CFR Part 573) is required to be submitted within 5 days of the determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, and not within 5 days of the mailing of notification letters. Your report should thus be submitted forthwith.; We will hold your check until you have submitted a notification lette and defect report in accordance with our requirements. At that time we will deposit the check and inform you that the case is closed.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5562OpenDennis T. Snyder, Esquire 7600 Red Road Suite 200 South Miami, FL 33143; Dennis T. Snyder Esquire 7600 Red Road Suite 200 South Miami FL 33143; "Dear Mr. Snyder: This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995 asking whether a client of yours is a 'final stage manufacturer' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and vehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs. The term 'manufacturer' is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as 'a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . ' (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to 'all manufacturers of motor vehicles,' as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5. The term 'final stage manufacturer' is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as 'a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.' An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in that section as 'an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle.' The term 'completed vehicle' is in turn defined in section 568.3 as 'a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . . .' Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3. Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle 'in such a manner that it conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates,' and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requirements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehicle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion. Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which provides that ' a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so. Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366- 5238. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0760OpenMr. Satoshi Nishibori, Engineering Representative, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Elglewood Cliffs, NJ, 07632; Mr. Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Elglewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 to interior components, enclosing pictures. Your list includes heater case, defroster hose, heater duct hose, heater fan, console box, shell cover, harness, reclining device cover, meter cover, shift lever boot, foot boots, and knobs.; None of the components you list are enumerated in S4.1 of Standard No 302. Consequently, they are not subject to the standard unless they are, as specified in S4.1, 'other interior materials . . . that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3337OpenMr. Ray W. Houseal, Osterlund, Inc., 7389 Paxton Street, P.O. Box 4376, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111; Mr. Ray W. Houseal Osterlund Inc. 7389 Paxton Street P.O. Box 4376 Harrisburg Pennsylvania 17111; Dear Mr. Houseal: This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicl identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number*.; The National Highway traffic SAfety Administration does not giv advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4558OpenVicky Johnson, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel Kansas Department of Transportation 7th Floor, Docking State Office Bldg. Topeka, Kansas 66612-1568; Vicky Johnson Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel Kansas Department of Transportation 7th Floor Docking State Office Bldg. Topeka Kansas 66612-1568; "Dear Ms. Johnson: This is a response to your letter asking for m comments on a school transportation issue that has arisen in Kansas. I apologize for the delay in this response. You explained that, in the past, many school districts in your State used vans with more than ten seating positions to transport school children, even though these vehicles were not certified as meeting Federal school bus standards. According to your letter, you informed those school districts that there are 'civil liability risks' associated with transporting students in vehicles that do not meet Federal school bus standards. Further, you said you informed those districts that a manufacturer or dealer who sells a school district a bus that is not a certified school bus may be in violation of Federal law. According to your letter, most of those school districts now recognize the 'considerable risks' associated with this practice. You are concerned that some of these districts are now purchasing the same vehicles that were previously certified as buses, but the vehicles now have only ten seating positions. Accordingly, the vehicles are now certified by the manufacturer as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). You believe that this situation is not a violation of Federal law because dealers are no longer selling school districts 'buses' that are not certified as school buses. However, you believe there is still a considerable risk of civil liability for the school districts in the event of a crash. You asked for our comments on this practice. Generally speaking, there is no violation of Federal law when a dealer sells a properly certified MPV to a school district. On the other hand, NHTSA has maintained a long-standing position that if a dealer sells an MPV or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, that dealer is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with all applicable school bus standards. (40 FR 60033, 60034, December 31, 1975.) For example, let us assume that a dealer sells a school district a vehicle that is certified as an MPV by its manufacturer. The vehicle has ten designated seating positions when it is delivered to the dealer, but is large enough to accommodate an additional bench seat, which would result in the vehicle having at least 13 designated seating positions. In this instance, a dealer who sells such a vehicle to a school district would have violated the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) against selling vehicles that do not comply with all applicable safety standards. In essence, NHTSA has concluded that a dealer may not legally sell a school district a vehicle that is capable of being converted into a school bus, unless: 1. that vehicle is certified as complying with applicable school bus standards, or 2. the dealer has reason to believe that the buyer has no intent of converting and using the vehicle as a school bus. If the dealer is uncertain of the buyer's intent, the agency has suggested that the dealer request a written statement of purpose from the buyer. (Id.) The agency has taken this position because the dealer frequently is the person in the distribution chain with the best knowledge of how a buyer intends to use a vehicle. Applying this reasoning to the situations described in your letter, the dealers selling MPVs to school districts might have done so in violation of Federal law. If the MPVs in question were capable of being converted into school buses, and the dealer had reason to believe that the purchasing school district intended to convert the vehicles to school buses, the dealer could only sell the MPV to the school district if the vehicles were certified as conforming to all applicable school bus standards. Your letter did not provide enough information for us to offer an opinion on any such potential liability. If you know of instances where a dealer may have sold vehicles to a school district under circumstances such as I describe here, please report this information to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, Room 6113, NEF-30 at the address on this letterhead. With respect to your question about the risk of civil liability in the event one of these vehicles is in a crash, that is a question of State, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how the matter would be resolved under Kansas law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Kansas to get an opinion about how the laws of Kansas would apply in such a situation. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3767OpenMr. Lee Jay Mandell, President, LJM Associates, Inc., 22030 Lanark Street, Canoga Park, CA 91034; Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President LJM Associates Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park CA 91034; Dear Mr. Mandell: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1983, discussing lighting product that you have developed and asking for 'the approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.'; Your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rea lights to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, your device operates by lights spreading from the center of the panel outward, in either or both directions.; We think that there is great potential for confusion that this devic could create since it is so unlike anything seen before on a motor vehicle. In the stopping mode the driver following will see the steady light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, but also the dynamic lights of your device spreading out from the center. The same dynamic light spread is seen but is meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously in the hazard warning mode. Thus, the potential for impairment of the required lighting equipment exists.; Generally, we do not favor any lights on the rear of a vehicle that ar not required by the Federal lighting standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2875OpenMr. Ken Yoneyama, Chief Engineer, Bridgestone Research Inc., 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4202, New York, New York 10001; Mr. Ken Yoneyama Chief Engineer Bridgestone Research Inc. 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4202 New York New York 10001; Dear Mr. Yoneyama: This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1978, askin whether tires listed in Table 1-A of Appendix A, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars*, must comply with Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards*, (UTQGS), if the tires are installed as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. You also inquire as to the effective dates for the provision of UTQGS information to first purchasers of new motor vehicles under Part 575.104(d) (1) (iii).; UTQGS applies to a tire type whose predominant contemplated use is o passenger cars, even if the manufacturer knows the tire type is also used as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A manufacturer's determination to certify a tire as conforming to Standard No. 109, will also determine the tire's classification for purposes of UTQGS. Thus, UTQGS would apply to any tire labeled with a size designation listed in Appendix A of Standard no.l 109, other than a deep tread, winter-type snow tire or space-saver or temporary use spare tire, regardless of the tire's actual use.; On October 23, 1978, NHTSA issued a *Federal Register* notice (cop enclosed) granting the petition of American Motors Corporation to revise the effective dates for Part 575.105(d) (1) (iii) to September 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 1, 1980 for bias-belted tires. On the basis of this change, your statement regarding effective dates is correct.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0848OpenMr. Gorou Utsunomiya, Chief, Liaison Engineer in U.S., 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Gorou Utsunomiya Chief Liaison Engineer in U.S. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Utsunomiya: This is in reply to your letter of August 8, 1972, enclosing sketche of motor vehicles and asking into which vehicle category under the motor vehicle safety standards they fall. The numbered paragraphs below correspond to those in your letter.; >>>1. Figures 1, 2, and 3 illustrate trailers under the standards Trailers are presently subject only to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.' Trailers equipped with air brakes and manufactured after September 1, 1974, will be required to conform to Standard No. 121, 'Air Brake Systems.' It is unlikely that many camping or recreational trailers will be subject to these requirements.; 2. Figure 4 illustrates two pickup trucks equipped with slide-i campers. Pickup trucks must conform to all standards applicable to trucks. The campers must conform, as you state, to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials.' Both pickup trucks and slide-in campers will be required to conform to a new Standard No. 126, 'Truck- Camper Loading,' when that standard becomes effective. A copy of the standard is enclosed.; 3. In referring to the illustrations of the pickup trucks equipped wit slide-in campers, you ask whether the requirements applicable to the trucks when combined with a camper are different from those applicable when the truck is not so equipped. The answer is no. The standards applicable to pickup trucks (those that are applicable to 'trucks') are the same whether or not the pickup is equipped with a camper.; 4. The requirements for pickup trucks and slide-in campers do no differ if both components are manufactured by the same company.; 5. Wagon campers and motor homes are considered to be multi-purpos passenger vehicles when constructed on truck chassis. The illustrations you enclose appear to us to represent vehicles manufactured on truck chassis.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.