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: aiam0781OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1972, requestin information on steps to be taken under the Certification regulations when a manufacturer considers a fifth wheel to be a 'readily attachable component,' and certifies the vehicle as a complete vehicle before the attachment of the fifth wheel. You ask what responsibilities apply to the person who ultimately attaches the fifth wheel when that person also affixes other components to the vehicle. You list as other components a third axle, the substitution of an air ride suspension for the regular suspension, and the addition of a 'drum' unit (we assume that this is a dromedary unit).; The situations you have listed appear to resemble situations similar t those involving the possible use of the 'altering distributor label' which we discussed in our letter to you of June 20. We said in that letter that if a person altering a completed vehicle does not make changes significant enough to make him a remanufacturer, he may satisfy the requirements by allowing the existing label to remain in place. If he does make significant changes, however, he must recertify the vehicle, but he may rely on the previous manufacturer's certification for those aspects of performance that are not affected by his alterations.; We would consider the addition of a third axle to be remanufacturing and you were correct in advising your member to recertify the vehicle, utilizing the information on the existing label except as to the third axle. Strictly speaking, however, your member as the remanufacturer is responsible for the conformity of the entire vehicle. While he may rely on the information on the original label, if a noncompliance were discovered the burden in the first instance would be on him to show that his alterations were not responsible.; We cannot determine from the information you provide whether th 'substitution of an air ride suspension' would constitute remanufacturing. You can probably infer the answer based on your own knowledge of what is involved.; With reference to the drum unit, we advised you by letter of March 24 1972, that we consider the addition of a dromedary unit to be remanufacturing. A person who installs such a component on a new vehicle would be required to recertify the entire vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. He may also rely on the previous certification for those aspects of performance which he does not affect.; You also ask whether, if the installation of the fifth wheel alters component covered by a safety standard, the installer should recertify the vehicle. As you are assuming that the fifth wheel is a 'readily attachable component,' no further certification is necessary. However, the person installing the fifth wheel must ensure that the vehicle conforms to all standards when the work is completed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0212OpenMr. Royal Leeman, Project Engineer, FWD Corporation, Clintonville, WI 54929; Mr. Royal Leeman Project Engineer FWD Corporation Clintonville WI 54929; >>>Re: *Petition for Rulemaking*<<< Dear Mr. Leeman: This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1969, requesting a exception from Paragraph S3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 ('Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses'), to allow the use of *Lexan* and *Plexiglas* in certain specified locations in twenty-one (21) fire fighting vehicles to be delivered to the City of New York.; You state the purpose of your request is to provide better protectio for occupants of these fire fighting vehicles from objects thrown at them when, for example, the vehicles are enroute to a fire. Further, you state the use of these materials would eliminate replacing safety glass, which can be broken when hit by small objects. Because you are requesting a change in an existing standard your letter has been treated as a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR SS 353.31, 353.33. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.; It is not completely clear from your letter and the enclosed drawin where the interior or canopy partitions in which you wish to use *Lexan* and *Plexiglas* are located. Standard No. 205 presently permits the use of rigid plastics in interior partitions of fire fighting vehicles if these materials meet the requirements for plastics designated AS4 and AS5 (the latter can only be used when not requisite for driving visibility) in American Standards Association Test Z26.1-1966, July 15, 1966. We understand that *Plexiglas* meets these requirements and may therefore be used in this location. We also understand, however, that *Lexan* does not, failing specifically to meet certain chemical and abrasion resistance requirements applicable to AS4 and AS5 rigid plastics under the Standard. If our understanding regarding Lexan is correct, we believe its failure to meet these minimum requirements renders it unsuitable for use in areas of motor vehicles where a possible loss of transparency may affect the safe operation of the vehicle.; With reference to glazing in side and door windows of fire fightin vehicles, Standard No. 205 allows the use of glazing specified AS1, AS2, and AS10 in ASA Test Z26.1-1966 and also allows the use of AS11 and AS3 glazing at levels not requisite for driving visibility. This glazing may be either laminated, tempered, or bullet resistant safety glass meeting the applicable requirements. Plastics meeting AS4 and AS5 requirements, while appropriate for certain locations such as partititions (sic), are not considered appropriate for use in side and door windows as they do not possess chemical and abrasion resistance qualities necessary for exterior glazing and which the types of safety glass specified above possess. The occupant protection which you desire can be provided by using AS10 (and AS11 where appropriate) bullet resistant glass which contains both structural advantages over normally used safety glazing and satisfactory chemical and abrasion resistance for use in side and door windows.; Sincerely, F. C. Turner, Federal Highway Administrator |
|
ID: aiam4098OpenDawn B. Brown, Esq., Currier, Zall & Shepard, 207 Main Street, P. O. Box L, Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2938; Dawn B. Brown Esq. Currier Zall & Shepard 207 Main Street P. O. Box L Nashua New Hampshire 03061-2938; Dear Ms. Brown: This responds to your January 2, 1987 letter asking a number o questions concerning certain aspects of automatic transmissions. You ask first if there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) relating to the permissibility of a transmissions design which allows a driver to remove the key from the ignition while the transmission is in drive. You state your belief that 'Standard 114, 49 CFR 571.113 is relevant,' and ask whether that standard ever has been interpreted for a purpose other than to prevent unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. (We assume that the citation of 571.113 instead of 571.114 was a typographical error.) You ask further if there are any Federal safety standards that address whether a vehicle should 'jump from park to drive when left in park.' Finally, you ask whether there are standards other than 114 'that govern these problems.'; As it currently is written, Standard 114 requires a manufacturer t install a key-locking system that prevents starting a vehicle engine and also prevents either, steering a vehicle or moving a vehicle forward under its own power whenever the key is removed. Thus, the standard does not directly require that the vehicle be in park before a driver can remove the ignition key.; In 1968, when Standard 114 was adopted, the stated purpose was t 'reduce the incidence of accidents resulting form unauthorized (motor vehicle) use.' 33 *Federal Register* 6471, April 27, 1968. The agency based this goal on evidence showing that: 'Cars operated by unauthorized persons are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury and death than those which are driven by authorized individuals.' (See the preceding citation.) Neither the Standard nor the language in the preamble to it states any other goal.; In 1980, this agency amended Standard 114 to prevent a driver fro inadvertently locking the steering wheel of a moving vehicle by removing the ignition key or shutting off the engine (45 Federal Register 85450, December 29, 1980). However, after receiving petitions for reconsideration and studying the question further, NHTSA decided that while this kind of inadvertent activation might be a safety problem in certain vehicles, the problem did not then warrant requiring additional steps to protect against inadvertent lock-up. Therefore, the agency rescinded the 1980 amendment. The agency stated that it would continue to monitor complaints on the subject, and initiate rulemaking should new data warrant it (46 Federal Register 32251, 32253, June 22, 1981).; Currently, the agency is re-evaluating whether data warrants amendin Standard 114 to improve key-locking systems by reducing the prospect of a driver s inadvertently locking the steering column while a motor vehicle is moving.; As to your question about the existence of a FMVSS which directl addresses the permissibility of a design which allows a car to jump from 'park' to 'drive' when a driver leaves the car in 'park,' the answer is there is no such standard. However, NHTSA has received a number of letters complaining of this phenomenon and, using its authority not only to issue FMVSS but also require the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects, has conducted investigations based on these complaints. A listing of the defects investigations can be obtained from: Technical Reference Division, NHTSA, Room 5108, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5656OpenMr. Richard L. Russell 12475 Central Avenue Suite 352 Chino, CA 91710; Mr. Richard L. Russell 12475 Central Avenue Suite 352 Chino CA 91710; "Dear Mr. Russell: This responds to your FAX of November 15, 1995, t Blane Laubis of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal lighting regulations as they may affect your plans to modify your 1956 Jeep. You wish to add two additional auxiliary lights to supplement your upper beams, and you ask whether these lights are 'required to be DOT approved.' The answer is no, the DOT regulation on motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe requirements for lamps intended to supplement the headlamps, and thus the lamps of which you speak do not have to be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. As a matter of information, your use of the words 'DOT approved' reflects a common misconception. We have no authority to approve or disapprove lighting equipment. Under our statute, a lighting (or vehicle) manufacturer is required to certify that its equipment (or vehicle) meets Standard No. 108 (if it is replacement equipment included in the standard), and the use of the DOT symbol on the item is the most frequently used method of certification. This means that the 'DOT approved' headlamps on your 1956 Jeep are probably replacement sealed beams with DOT markings on them. You ask whether there is any limitation to bulb wattage for auxiliary lamps used to supplement the headlamps when used on the upper beam. There is no wattage limitation, however, if auxiliary lamps were installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before its first sale, we would regard the vehicle manufacturer's certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver's ability to perceive the front turn signals. Although your Jeep was manufactured long before the effective date of Standard No. 108 (January 1, 1969), we ask you to consider this safety concern when adding auxiliary lamps. We do not know the local laws on this subject, and recommend that you seek advice from the Department of California Highway Patrol. If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will answer them for you (phone 202-366-5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4756OpenMr. Brian Gill Senior Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 100 West Alondra Boulevard P. O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247-0805; Mr. Brian Gill Senior Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co. Inc. 100 West Alondra Boulevard P. O. Box 50 Gardena California 90247-0805; "Dear Mr. Gill: This responds to your request that this agenc determine that the new antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 Honda Acura NS-X car line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Acura NS-X vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. As you are aware, the Acura NS-X car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Honda showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on February 5, 1990, and appeared in the Federal Register on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4746). The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is 'likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541).' In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation, attracting attention to unauthorized entries, preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons, preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants, and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device. In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Honda plans improvements in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Acura NS-X in two ways: First, the new antitheft system would be armed by using the auto door lock system control to lock either door. Honda states that in the system that was the subject of the exemption from the theft prevention system, it was necessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. According to the attachment provided in your letter, this change would make it possible to arm the the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked. Second, the radio would now be included in the alarm system. Thus, the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal or the coupler is disconnected, or if the radio's wiring is cut. After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Honda to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2). If Honda does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Honda notify the agency of such decisions. It is my understanding that, in a May 16, 1990, telephone conversation between Brian Tinkler of Honda and Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Tinkler confirmed that Honda was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking /"; |
|
ID: aiam5414OpenSamson Helfgott, Esq. Helfgott & Karas, P.C. 60th Floor Empire State Building New York, NY 10118-6098; Samson Helfgott Esq. Helfgott & Karas P.C. 60th Floor Empire State Building New York NY 10118-6098; "Re: Your Ref. No.: 12.065 Dear Mr. Helfgott: We have received you letter of July 1, 1994, to Paul Jackson Rice, former chief counsel of this agency, on behalf of your client Harold Caine, with respect to whether a certain supplementary lighting system would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed copies of two previous letters that this Office has sent you on other supplementary lighting systems developed by Mr. Caine. You state that 'Mr. Caine is considering the possibility of utilizing a combination of red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the side of trucks and other vehicles.' Since you later ask 'whether the presence of the red and amber lights on the sides of the vehicle would be permissible under Standard No. 108', we interpret this as meaning that the red and amber lamps would be in addition to those red and amber lamps that are presently required on the sides of vehicles (the side marker lamps) by Standard No. 108. However, your letter fails to state the number and candela of the lamps, and how they would be arrayed along the side of the vehicle. As we understand it, during normal vehicle operation, the amber side lamps of the system would be activated. When the brake pedal is applied, the amber lamps are extinguished and the required stop lamps and red side lamps of the system would be activated. As you know from previous correspondence, supplementary lighting equipment is prohibited only if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 specifies that front and intermediate side marker lamps (those at or near the midpoint of the length) shall be amber, and that rear ones shall be red. If, in the Caine system, the amber supplementary lamps are mounted to the front of the vehicle side and the red supplementary lamps to the rear of the vehicle side (i.e., amber from front to and including the midpoint, red, after the midpoint to the rear), we do not see that the supplementary system would have an impairing effect upon the stop lamps or rear side marker lamps and reflectors. If, however, the system consists of alternating red and amber lamps displayed along the side of the vehicle, then the potential for confusion as to orientation of the trailer could result, impairing the effectiveness of the color code of the required side marker lamps. We assume that the candela of the lamps in the Caine system is no greater than that permitted for the side marker lamps that are required by Standard No 108, but if the candela is greater, that would also create the potential for impairment if the array alternates red and amber lamps. You have also asked 'whether there are any prohibitions that might prevent utilization of this structure on the sides of the vehicles.' We know of none, however, it is possible that some States might have laws that would affect this. As we are unable to advise you on State law, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3748OpenFrank B. Hill, Esq., Patent and Trademark Counsel, Bandag, Inc., Bandag Center, Muscatine, IA 52761; Frank B. Hill Esq. Patent and Trademark Counsel Bandag Inc. Bandag Center Muscatine IA 52761; Dear Mr. Hill: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, askin about marking requirements applicable to truck tires retreaded for non-highway use. You stated in your letter that the retreaded tires would be mounted only on vehicles used in shipyard areas to move cargo around. I will answer the three questions you raised in the order you presented them.; >>>1. *Is it required that a retreader put its DOT identification mar on truck tires when they are retreaded for non-highway use?*<<<; It is not possible to give a simple yes or no answer to this question 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*, sets forth certain marking requirements which must be met by manufacturers and retreaders of tires, including the requirement in section 574.5 that a DOT identification mark be molded on all new and retreaded tires. However, section 574.1 specifies that the requirements of Part 574 apply only to new and retreaded *tires for use on motor vehicles*. Hence, the question which must be answered to determine if a retreader is required to put its DOT identification mark on a retreaded tire is whether the tire is for use on motor vehicles.; 'Motor vehicle' is defined at 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) as 'any vehicle drive or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' If these retreaded tires are for use on forklifts or other types of mobile construction equipment intended and sold primarily for off-road use, the retreader would not be required to mold a DOT identification mark on the tires, because the tires would not be for use on motor vehicles. This is true even if these types of vehicles are incidentally used for highway travel from one job site to another.; If, on the other hand, the vehicles on which the retreaded tires ar mounted are conventional on-road trucks simply being used in a shipyard, the retreaders would be required to comply with the requirements of Part 574, because the tires are for use on motor vehicles. The determination of whether the retreaded tires are for use on motor vehicles must be made initially by the retreader, but it would be subject to review by this agency.; >>>2. *If a DOT identification mark is not required, is there any othe notice that is required on the retreaded trucks tires, retreaded for non-highway use?*<<<; If the retreaded truck tires are not subject to the Part 574 markin requirements, because they are not for use on motor vehicles, there are no other marking requirements applicable to retreaded truck tires.; >>>3. *If no notice is required and the DOT identification mark is no required, would it be permissible to place a disclaimer notice such as 'Not Retreaded for Highway Use' on the retreaded truck tire?*<<<; This sort of notice would be permitted, and would be a usefu disclosure for the retreader and the user of the tire, to show the intended use of the tire. Such a notice would not affect the retreader's duty to determine whether the tire was retreaded for use on motor vehicles, and mold its DOT identification mark on the sidewall of the tire if it were for use on motor vehicles.; Should you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3749OpenFrank B. Hill, Esq., Patent and Trademark Counsel, Bandag, Inc., Bandag Center, Muscatine, IA 52761; Frank B. Hill Esq. Patent and Trademark Counsel Bandag Inc. Bandag Center Muscatine IA 52761; Dear Mr. Hill: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, askin about marking requirements applicable to truck tires retreaded for non-highway use. You stated in your letter that the retreaded tires would be mounted only on vehicles used in shipyard areas to move cargo around. I will answer the three questions you raised in the order you presented them.; >>>1. *Is it required that a retreader put its DOT identification mar on truck tires when they are retreaded for non-highway use?*<<<; It is not possible to give a simple yes or no answer to this question 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*, sets forth certain marking requirements which must be met by manufacturers and retreaders of tires, including the requirement in section 574.5 that a DOT identification mark be molded on all new and retreaded tires. However, section 574.1 specifies that the requirements of Part 574 apply only to new and retreaded *tires for use on motor vehicles*. Hence, the question which must be answered to determine if a retreader is required to put its DOT identification mark on a retreaded tire is whether the tire is for use on motor vehicles.; 'Motor vehicle' is defined at 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) as 'any vehicle drive or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' If these retreaded tires are for use on forklifts or other types of mobile construction equipment intended and sold primarily for off-road use, the retreader would not be required to mold a DOT identification mark on the tires, because the tires would not be for use on motor vehicles. This is true even if these types of vehicles are incidentally used for highway travel from one job site to another.; If, on the other hand, the vehicles on which the retreaded tires ar mounted are conventional on-road trucks simply being used in a shipyard, the retreaders would be required to comply with the requirements of Part 574, because the tires are for use on motor vehicles. The determination of whether the retreaded tires are for use on motor vehicles must be made initially by the retreader, but it would be subject to review by this agency.; >>>2. *If a DOT identification mark is not required, is there any othe notice that is required on the retreaded trucks tires, retreaded for non-highway use?*<<<; If the retreaded truck tires are not subject to the Part 574 markin requirements, because they are not for use on motor vehicles, there are no other marking requirements applicable to retreaded truck tires.; >>>3. *If no notice is required and the DOT identification mark is no required, would it be permissible to place a disclaimer notice such as 'Not Retreaded for Highway Use' on the retreaded truck tire?*<<<; This sort of notice would be permitted, and would be a usefu disclosure for the retreader and the user of the tire, to show the intended use of the tire. Such a notice would not affect the retreader's duty to determine whether the tire was retreaded for use on motor vehicles, and mold its DOT identification mark on the sidewall of the tire if it were for use on motor vehicles.; Should you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5318OpenR. Mark Willingham, Esquire Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C. 114 Lost Creek Boulevard, Suite 215 Austin, TX 78746; R. Mark Willingham Esquire Thornton Summers Biechlin Dunham & Brown L.C. 114 Lost Creek Boulevard Suite 215 Austin TX 78746; "Dear Mr. Willingham: This responds to your February 1, 1994, letter t me about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) consumer information regulation for utility vehicles (49 CFR 575.105, Utility Vehicles). The regulation, Part 575.105, requires manufacturers to permanently affix a prescribed sticker in a prominent location of each utility vehicle to alert drivers of the handling differences between utility vehicles and passenger cars. You asked about the meaning of the word 'permanent' as used in Part 575.105. In a May 1984 final rule establishing Part 575.105 (copy enclosed), NHTSA said that the label 'should be of a permanent nature' and concurred with a comment on the proposed rule that the label should be permanently affixed so that, among other reasons, subsequent vehicle owners are made aware of the utility vehicle's handling characteristics. NHTSA believed specifying precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed would be design restrictive. However, we stated in the enclosed final rule that stickers such as the placard required by paragraph S4.3, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, would be considered adequate. You also asked 'to whom is Part 575.105 directed (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealership)... or a seller of a used vehicle.' The regulation applies to the manufacturer and seller of a new vehicle, not to a seller of a used vehicle. The regulation was issued under sections 103, 112 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (hereinafter Safety Act). Section 103 authorizes NHTSA to issue and amend Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 112(d) (15 U.S.C. 1401(d)) authorizes NHTSA: ' T o require the manufacturer (of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment) to give such notification of such performance and technical data as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act in the following manner -- (1) to each prospective purchaser of a motor vehicle or item of equipment before its first sale for purposes other than resale . . ., and (2) to the first person who purchases a motor vehicle or item of equipment for purposes other than resale . . . . Section 119 confers general rulemaking authority to issue rules to effectuate the express grants of authority and the obligations imposed by the Safety Act. Sections 103, 112 and 119 of the Safety Act authorize NHTSA to require the consumer information label up to the delivery of the new vehicle to the consumer who first purchases the vehicle 'for purposes other than resale'. NHTSA cannot require sellers of used vehicles to restore missing labels prior to sale of the used vehicles, or prohibit a vehicle owner from removing or defacing the label. You also asked for documents regarding the drafting and interpretation of Part 575.105. Please find enclosed copies of the following: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58323), final rule, dated May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20016), final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration, dated August 10, 1984 (49 FR 32069), and letter to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq., dated August 15, 1984. For future reference, copies of NHTSA's interpretation letters can be obtained from the agency's docket section. The address for the docket is 400 Seventh St., S.W., room 5108, Washington, D.C., 20590, telephone (202) 366-4949. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam5514OpenThe Honorable Tillie K. Fowler Member, U.S. House of Representatives 4452 Hendricks Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32207; The Honorable Tillie K. Fowler Member U.S. House of Representatives 4452 Hendricks Avenue Jacksonville FL 32207; "Your Reference: 95-0167-J Dear Congresswoman Fowler: Thank you fo your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dail Taylor of St. Augustine, Florida. Mr. Taylor requested assistance, stating that his company would have to stop manufacturing passenger motor vehicles if the vehicles must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). I appreciate the concerns of Mr. Taylor as a small businessman and offer the following information. In order to protect motorists and their passengers, a Federal statute requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs regulating motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Mr. Taylor's company, Goodlife Motor Company, wrote to NHTSA asking whether their 'super golf cars' were motor vehicles and therefore subject to the FMVSSs. NHTSA's Chief Counsel responded by letter that the answer was 'yes'. We were informed that the 'super golf cars' are intended for use on public roads. NHTSA has two criteria for determining whether a vehicle that regularly uses the public roads is considered to be a 'motor vehicle.' A vehicle is not a motor vehicle if it meets both of the following criteria: the vehicle has an abnormal configuration distinguishing it from other vehicles, and the vehicle cannot attain speeds over 20 miles per hour (mph). The 'super golf cars' do not meet either criterion. We have determined that because the vehicles resemble passenger cars, they do not have an abnormal configuration. As to speed, we note that the top speed of the vehicles, 29 mph, is approximately the speed at which NHTSA conducts crash tests to see whether vehicles meet certain safety standards. It is also a speed at which vehicle occupants can readily suffer serious or even fatal injuries in a crash. We note further that older adults are more susceptible than younger adults to injury in motor vehicle crashes. This is particularly important since we understand that one of the primary expected uses of the 'super golf car' is in retirement communities. As motor vehicles, the 'super golf cars' must meet the FMVSS. As the president of a small business, Mr. Taylor has a number of compliance options. First, he can comply with the current safety standards. I appreciate that the costs of compliance would be significant. Second, Mr. Taylor may petition NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to amend the current safety standards to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. NHTSA has authority to establish different levels of requirements for vehicles of different sizes. However, it lacks the authority to vary the stringency of requirements based on the size of a vehicle manufacturer. Third, NHTSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to small manufacturers. Mr. Taylor may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more of the safety standards. However, as we explained to Mr. Taylor, temporary exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. Further, the exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted. Mr. Taylor may himself prepare and submit any petition. We have enclosed copies of our regulations regarding petitions for rulemaking and petitions for exemption. If Mr. Taylor has any questions or needs further information on how to proceed under any of the three options discussed above, we will gladly provide assistance. Please ask him to contact Taylor Vinson at (202)366-2992. Sincerely, Carol Stroebel, Director Intergovernmental Affairs Enclosures"; |
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.