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: aiam4262OpenMr. Pete Cameron-Nott, 90 Horace Street, Startford, CT 06497; Mr. Pete Cameron-Nott 90 Horace Street Startford CT 06497; Dear Mr. Cameron-Nott: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1986, with respect t kit cars. Your first question concerns a 1965 Jaguar that has been rebodied but carries its original mechanical components, title, and identification number. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars if the passenger car to be imported into the United States was manufactured before January 1, 1968. However, certain of these standards cover vehicle components, and if the relevant components have been manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, these components would be subject to the applicable Federal safety standard. These components include brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, retreaded tire, glazing materials (most importantly, the windshield must be marked AS-1), seat belt assemblies, and wheel coves (which may not incorporate winged projections). Although the 1965 Jaguar would have a new body, by retaining its original mechanical components, title, and identification number, it would be considered a 1965 model and not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars. But if any of the equipment listed above has been manufactured after January 1, 1968, those items must comply in order to be imported into this country.; You have asked how the situation would differ were the bodied Jaguar 1972 model, the other facts being identical. We would consider this car a 1972 model, and required to conform to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied on the date of its original manufacture. Conformity could be achieved either before or after its importation into this country.; Your second question concerns 'a kit car consisting of both new an used components i.e. new body/chassis and used mechanicals from various sources including Ford/Triumph and M.G.' You have reported EPA's position that the year of the engine determines what standards are to be met, and you have asked if these are also DOT's requirements. The age of the engine is not the determining factor with us. Generally, the agency considers a kit car consisting of new body and new chassis to be a new motor vehicle, and required to meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new passenger cars as of the date of its assembly, even if some of its mechanical components have been used previously. This means that such components must not prevent the assembled vehicle from meeting those standards.; If you have further questions we would be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4798OpenMr. S. Kadoya Manager Safety and Technology Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc. 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Mr. S. Kadoya Manager Safety and Technology Mazda Research and Development of North America Inc. 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor MI 48105; Dear Mr. Kadoya: This responds to your request for interpretations o several safety standards and the Bumper Standard, in connection with a planned 'active' suspension system. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. Your questions are responded to below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by this agency, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. According to your letter, Mazda is concerned about the protocol of compliance testing of vehicles equipped with an active suspension system. This concern arises because many standards do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance testing. As you noted, this has not been a concern for conventional suspension systems, since they do not provide for variable height. NOTE: THIS IS PART II OF AN INTERPRETATION LETTER TOO LONG TO BE ACCEPTED INTO THE DATABASE AS IS. PART I COVERS COMPLIANCE ISSUES (PART 571), AND STANDARDS 108, 211 AND 204. ITS KEY NUMBER IS 5023. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection In asking about Standard No. 208, you stated the following: Section S8.1.1.(d), 'Vehicle test attitude,' specifies the test procedure for determining the vehicle test attitude that is to be used for testing. Specifically, this section requires that the vehicle's pretest attitude, '...shall be equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded attitude or between the as delivered and fully loaded attitude.' The as delivered attitude is defined by S8.1.1(d) as being, '...the distance between a level surface and a standard reference point on the test vehicle's body, directly above each wheel opening, when the vehicle is in its 'as delivered' condition. The 'as delivered' condition is the vehicle as received at the test site...' Because it is highly likely that the test vehicle will not have been operated for a period of days prior to arriving at the test site, the suspension height may have fallen by 'y' mm. The fully loaded attitude is defined as the attitude of the vehicle when loaded in accordance with S8.1.1(a) or (b) and a determination of the height of the suspension at the fully loaded condition is made from the same level surface, using the same standard reference points, as were used to determine the 'as delivered' condition. The definition of the 'as delivered' condition is quite clear. However, Mazda interprets the 'fully loaded condition' of the vehicle to be the condition when the vehicle's ignition is 'on.' In this instance it is likely that the height of the standard reference points on the vehicles body when in the 'fully loaded condition' relative to the level surface will be greater than for the 'as delivered' condition. Conversely, conventional vehicle suspension systems will likely have an 'as delivered' height greater than the 'full loaded' height. However, this fact is of no importance as S8.1.1(d) states that the pretest vehicle attitude may be, '...between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude.' With respect to the injury criteria specified by section S6 of this standard, Mazda's interpretation is that these criteria must be met with the vehicle's ignition in the 'on' position only. You then asked three questions, (1) whether Mazda's interpretation of the definition of the 'fully loaded condition' is correct with respect to the condition of the ignition switch, (2) whether Mazda's interpretation of the irrelevance of the relative relationship between the 'as delivered' and 'fully loaded' conditions is correct, and (3) whether Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of 'between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude' is correct. In addressing you questions, I will begin by noting that Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements which must be met in specified crash tests at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions, it does not specify suspension height. However, the standard does specify vehicle attitude, which is closely related to suspension height. In addressing how Standard No. 208 applies in the absence of a specification for vehicle height, the relationship between the standard's attitude specification and vehicle height must be considered. Section S8.1.1(d) specifies the attitude of the vehicle during testing, i.e., the angle of the vehicle relative to the ground. This test condition ensures that the vehicle is not overly tilted toward the front or back, or to one side. The section accomplishes this purpose by specifying that, during a compliance test, the height of the vehicle at each wheel is within a specified range. This range, which may be somewhat different for each wheel, is determined by looking at the vehicle in the 'as delivered' condition an the 'fully loaded' condition. A vehicle must meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 when its height at each wheel is anywhere within the specified ranges. On first glance, one might read section S8.1.1(d) to create a height requirement, since ranges of height are determined under that section (at each wheel). This would be incorrect, except in a very narrow sense, since Standard No. 208 does not specify, for vehicles with variable height suspension systems, what suspension height should be used in the two conditions ('as delivered' and 'fully loaded') where the specified ranges of height are determined under section S8.1.1(d). Looking at the Standard No. 208 as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA explicitly decided to limit the standard's evaluation of occupant crash protection in frontal impacts to how vehicles perform in impacts of 30 mph or less, even though the requirements also have relevance at higher speeds. It is our interpretation that the frontal crash test requirements need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at speeds of 30 mph or less, with the vehicle operational. It is also our interpretation that the crash test requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test. A remaining issue is how section S8.1.1(d) applies for vehicles with variable height suspension systems. As discussed below, vehicle attitude should be determined under this section using the actual suspension setting (or equivalent, if the setting is automatic) to be used in a crash test. For purposes of illustration, I will assume a vehicle with two very different suspension height settings. It would not be appropriate to conclude that the ranges of height determined under section S8.1.1(d) should simultaneously cover both suspension heights. Such ranges would be very large, and would not ensure that the vehicle is not overly tilted toward the front or back, or to one side. Moreover, such ranges would not be relevant to the real world, with respect to vehicle attitude. Traditional vehicles can be viewed as having a single suspension 'setting.' This single suspension condition is used in determining vehicle attitude under section S5.8.8.1. The ranges of height result from the differences in loading under the 'as delivered' and 'fully loaded' conditions. A single suspension 'setting' (or equivalent, if the setting is automatic) should similarly be used in determining vehicle attitude for vehicles with variable height suspension systems. The 'setting' should be the one to be used in a crash test. With respect to Mazda's question concerning means of maintaining intended suspension height for compliance testing, please see our discussion provided with respect to Standard No. 111. You also asked for an interpretation of section S8.2.7 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies additional conditions to be used for lateral moving barrier crash testing. Section S8.2.7(a) states that the vehicle is at rest in its 'normal attitude.' You stated that Mazda interprets the meaning of 'normal attitude' to be that vehicle attitude which is intended when the vehicle's ignition is in the 'on' condition, with the vehicle loaded pursuant to S8.1.1(a) or (b), and while the vehicle is at rest. Standard No. 208 provides manufacturers the option of either equipping their vehicles with safety belts or meeting certain alternative requirements, including lateral moving barrier crash test requirements. These requirements are relevant at all vehicle heights that can occur during vehicle operation, regardless of speed. Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the standard's evaluation of this aspect of safety performance to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that the lateral moving barrier crash test requirements, if applicable, must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational. 'Normal attitude' is the attitude determined under section S8.1.1(d). As discussed above, attitude for vehicles equipped with variable height suspension systems is determined under section S8.1.1.(d) using the actual suspension setting (or equivalent, if the setting is automatic) to be used in a crash test. Standards No. 212, Windshield Mounting, No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, No. 301, Fuel System Integrity In asking about Standards NO. 212, No. 219, and No. 301, you noted that NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation to Mazda about how these standards apply to adjustable height suspension systems. In a letter dated August 10, 1982, the agency addressed a vehicle equipped with a suspension system having two height positions, one for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving, which could be selected by the driver. NHTSA stated the following: Safety Standards No. 212, No. 219, and No. 301 do not specify a height adjustment because almost all vehicles have a single, set adjustment . . . . After careful consideration, it is the agency's position that such a vehicle capable of variable height adjustment would have to comply with the vehicle adjusted to any position that is possible. This is true because the vehicle could be driven on the highway, for example, even if it were adjusted to the off-road position. Consequently, it is important that the vehicle comply with the standards in all positions. You noted that while suspension height could be adjusted by the driver for the system discussed in the agency's previous interpretation, the active suspension system you are currently considering would use an on-board electronic controller to select suspension height, and suspension height would not be adjustable by the driver. Consequently, according to your letter, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehicle speed and loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. You stated that because it is possible to determine exactly what the intended suspension height should be for a given situation, it is Mazda's opinion that the test vehicle should be tested at the intended suspension height given the specified speed and loading conditions. You also stated that , using an 'intended purpose' argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of the three standards are to be met only when the vehicle's ignition is 'on.' You then asked whether these suggested interpretations are correct. Standard No. 212 specifies windshield retention requirements that must be met in a specified frontal crash test at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Similarly, Standard No. 219 specifies windshield zone intrusion requirements that must be met in a specified frontal crash test at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Standard No. 301 specifies fuel system integrity requirements for several specified crash tests. These include a frontal crash test similar to those in Standards No. 212 and No. 219. Requirements for this test must be met at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Other tests include a rear moving barrier crash test, a lateral moving barrier crash test, and a static rollover test. We agree that the requirements of Standards No. 212, No. 219, and No. 301 need not be met for vehicle heights that only occur when the engine is not on, since the requirements are only relevant is situations where the vehicle is operating. Looking at the three standards as a whole, were believe it is clear that, for the frontal tests specified by the three standards, NHTSA decided to limit the standards' evaluation of safety performance to how vehicles perform in impacts of 30 mph or less, even thought the requirements have relevance at higher speeds. It is our interpretation that the frontal crash test requirements specified by these standards need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at speeds of 30 mph or less, with the vehicle operational. It is also our interpretation that the crash test requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test. We reach a different conclusion for Standard No. 301's other crash test requirements. These requirements are relevant at all vehicle speeds and suspension heights. Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the standard's evaluation of these aspects of safety performance to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that these crash test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational. Part 581 Bumper Standard In asking about the Part 581 Bumper Standard, you noted that NHTSA has previously issued several interpretations of how the standard applies to vehicles with adjustable height suspension systems. In a letter to Subaru dated May 6, 1986, NHTSA stated the following: Given the absence of a specific test condition concerning suspension height, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted. There is no language in the test requirements of the standard limiting their applicability to 'the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position.' This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Bumper Standard, set forth in section 581.2, to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed collisions. If a vehicle's suspension could be adjusted so that its bumper height resulted in bumper mismatch with other vehicles in the event of low speed collision, the reduction in physical damage attributable to the Bumper Standard would be defeated in whole or part. In another letter, dated February 12, 1985, NHTSA stated that a vehicle is 'required to meet the pendulum test of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the vehicle operates, and the barrier test of Part 581 when the engine is idling.' You suggested , for the barrier test, that the agency's May 1986 interpretation may be inappropriate for your active suspension system, since your system provides for only one suspension height when the engine is idling. You also suggested, for the pendulum test, that these interpretations seem to be in conflict with the Bumper Standard's stated purpose to reduce physical damage to motor vehicles in low speed collisions. We assume that you are referring to the fact that your suspension system has heights that occur only at speeds greater than 35 mph. You then requested that NHTSA provide an interpretation of Part 581 with respect to your system. In addressing how Part 581 applies to vehicles equipped with an active suspension system, I will address separately the standard's barrier and pendulum tests. For the barrier test, a vehicle must meet specified damage criteria after an impact into a fixed barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, at 2.5 mph. Section 581.6 sets forth conditions applicable to bumper testing. Under section 581.6(c), at the onset of a barrier impact, the vehicle's engine is operating at idling speed. Looking at the Bumper Standard as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA decided to limit the barrier test's evaluation of bumper performance to how vehicles perform in 2.5 mph frontal impacts, event though the requirements have relevance at lower and higher speeds and when the vehicle is nonoperational. It is our interpretation that the barrier test requirements specified by this standard need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at 2.5 mph. We reach a different conclusion for the pendulum test, which serves the purpose of creating a bumper height requirement. This requirement is relevant at all vehicle speeds and suspension heights, and when the vehicle is nonoperational. I note that while Mazda is correct that the Bumper Standard's stated purpose is to reduce physical damage to motor vehicles in low speed collision, NHTSA has justified the bumper height requirement on safety concerns related to 'higher speed collisions.' In proposing Standard No. 215, the predecessor of Part 581, the agency stated: . . . in higher speed collisions the tendency of a bumper to override another or to ride under or over a guardrail creates hazards for vehicle occupants. Vehicles with interlocking bumpers block traffic and expose their occupant to considerable danger, particularly if they attempt to get out to unlock bumpers. By overriding or underriding a guardrail, a bumper may strike a supporting post, or similar fixed object, with serious consequences for the vehicle and its occupants. 35 FR 17999, November 24, 1970. The relevance of the bumper height requirement to nonoperational situations is also clear, e.g., to help protect parked cars. Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the bumper height requirements to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that the pendulum test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur, regardless of vehicle speed or whether the ignition is turned on. This interpretation is consistent with an October 18, 1978 letter to Nissan, in which NHTSA addressed how the pendulum test applies to vehicles equipped with height control systems, including automatic height control systems. Among other things, the agency stated the following: . . . There is no language in the pendulum test requirements of the standard which would limit their applicability to only the ignition-on or ignition-off situation or to the recommended driving position for normal roadways. The vehicle must be capable of meeting the pendulum test requirements at all stable bumper heights possible at unloaded vehicle weight. Thus, in the situations described in Question 1 and 2 of your letter, in which an automatic height control system is employed, the vehicle must comply with the pendulum test requirements in both the ignition-on and ignition-off positions . . . . I note that one of our past letters, a December 24, 1984 letter addressed to Porsche, appears to suggest that the pendulum test must be met in any setting in which the system operates 'when the engine is idling.' This might be read to suggest that the pendulum test need not be met when the vehicle is nonoperational. However, this interpretation cited section 581.6(c) in concluding that the engine is idling during Part 581 testing. Section 581.6(c) applies only to the barrier test and not the pendulum test. We therefore consider this interpretation to be incorrect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the analysis presented above. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1060OpenMr. R. E. Jones, Product Engineer, The Flxible Co., Loudonville, OH 44842; Mr. R. E. Jones Product Engineer The Flxible Co. Loudonville OH 44842; Dear Mr. Jones: This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 1973, requesting tha you be permitted to affix the Certification label for buses manufactured by your company on the right side of the dash panel, as illustrated in a picture (your serial; B72-4375-2) you have enclosed. As pictured, the label in the location you have chosen is easil readable without moving any part of the vehicle except an outer door, as required by section 567.4(c) of the Certification regulations, and your request that you be permitted to affix the label for these vehicles in that location is hereby approved.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3548OpenMr. Gary D. Williams, Wisconsin Automobile Truck Dealers Association, P.O. Box 5345, Madison, WS (sic) 53705; Mr. Gary D. Williams Wisconsin Automobile Truck Dealers Association P.O. Box 5345 Madison WS (sic) 53705; Dear Mr. Williams: This is in response to your letter of November 17, 1981, proposing a amendment to Section 580.6 of the Odometer Disclosure Requirements. 49 CFR 580 *et seq*. We regret our delay in responding. Specifically, you proposed the inclusion of a certification on the odometer disclosure statement that 'the odometer reading is not known to be the actual mileage by the seller.' After consideration of this suggestion, we believe that such a certification of lack of knowledge would tend to defeat the purposes of the Federal odometer laws and we, therefore, cannot recommend such a certification for inclusion in the odometer disclosure statement.; Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac requires that each transferor of a motor vehicle furnish to the transferee a written statement certifying the accuracy of the mileage. 15 U.S.C. 1988. The regulations establish a specific scheme for the certification of the accuracy of the odometer reading 49 CFR 580.4(c)(1) - (3). Where a transferor has knowledge that the odometer reading is inaccurate, the regulations require the transferor to certify that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. However, where the transferor has no reason to believe that the odometer reading is inaccurate, the dealer must certify the accuracy of the odometer reading to the subsequent purchaser. Of course, this scheme also permits a dealer to rely on the statements of prior owners and transferors. This certification scheme ensures as much as possible a reliable and accurate mileage history of a vehicle without subjecting any party to liability without fault.; The purpose of this scheme is to make the practice of alteration o odometers without detection more difficult by creating a record of the mileage stated and acknowledged by buyer and seller at each transaction. Such a scheme allows a purchaser to search the chain of transactions to determine whether any previous title holder has reduced the mileage. This purpose would be defeated by any change in the scheme which allows a transferor to avoid making a mileage statement or to make an equivocal statement. Accordingly, unless there is a more compelling reason to allow the form of certification you propose, we would recommend against such an amendment.; If you wish to have your proposal considered more formally by th agency you may petition for rulemaking pursuant to the procedures set out at 49 CFR Part 552. We are enclosing a copy of this regulation.; Sincerely, David W. Allen, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1575OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Commander Heath: This is in reply to your letter of July 5, 1974, asking whether consistently with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, California may amend its vehicle code to permit the use of dark tint glazing material in the rear windows of passenger vehicles following their sale, when they are equipped with outside rearview mirrors on both sides of the vehicle.; Assuming that the material does not conform to Standard No. 205, a amendment such as the one you describe would not be consistent with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and would thus be null and void under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). That section preempts State standards which are not identical to Federal standards applicable to the same aspect of motor vehicle or equipment performance.; Standard No. 205 applies to the glazing used in motor vehicles, settin performance and labeling requirements as well as specifying in which vehicle locations various types of glazing materials may be used. The standard does not apply to motor vehicles as such, and your rationale that the standard does not apply after the vehicle's first purchase is inapposite in this case. Unless the glazing you describe meets the requirements for either one of the glazing items listed in ANS Z26.1 or one of the additional items added by Standard No. 205, it cannot be manufactured or sold for use in motor vehicles. Unless occurring after the first purchase of the glazing material for a purpose other than resale, the installation in a motor vehicle of glazing that does not conform to the standard, or its installation in a vehicle location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, regardless in each case of whether the vehicle is new or used, would be a violation of section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397), as it would be an introduction into interstate commerce of an item of motor vehicle equipment (the glazing) which did not conform to an applicable standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4777OpenDonald C. J. Gray, Commissioner Federal Supply Service General Services Administration Washington, DC 20406; Donald C. J. Gray Commissioner Federal Supply Service General Services Administration Washington DC 20406; "Dear Mr. Gray: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, ou Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your letter noted that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not apply to vehicles that are 'manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications.' You asked if this exception could be interpreted as applying to school buses purchased by the General Services Administration for the sole use of the Army. The answer to your specific question is 'yes.' Those buses would be regarded as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces. The exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c) reflects a balancing of competing interests. On the one hand, Congress specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that all new motor vehicles sold in the United States must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. On the other hand, NHTSA recognizes the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles. When the Armed Forces include specifications in a contract stating how the vehicles shall be produced and as a result the vehicles do not conform with some safety standards, this presumably reflects a judgment by the Armed Forces that the specialized capabilities needed in the vehicle are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the general interest in ensuring that Armed Forces' vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. To reflect both of these competing interests, NHTSA tailored a narrow exception to the broad requirement that all motor vehicles sold in the United States be certified as complying with the safety standards. This exception, reflected in the language of 49 CFR 571.7(c), provides that the safety standards do not apply to vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that are: manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications. We would regard the buses as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces despite the fact that the purchasing was performed by the GSA instead of some element of the Armed Forces. The essential element of this criterion is that the Armed Forces be the principal. In this case, the Armed Forces would be the principal, and the GSA would simply be acting as its agent. We see no meaningful difference between a sale to an element of the Armed Forces and one to the GSA acting as agent for the Armed Forces, as long as the vehicles are for the sole use of the military. Our conclusions in this regard are consistent with several 1975 agency interpretations informing brake hose manufacturers that brake hoses manufactured according to military specifications and sold to military contractors for incorporation in vehicles to be sold to the military could be regarded as equipment sold directly to the Armed Forces. Please note that to qualify for this exemption, the buses must be manufactured for the Armed Forces 'in conformity with contractual specifications.' In the interest of safety, we strongly recommend that the GSA or the Army, as appropriate, include the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses in those specifications, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended usage of the buses. I hope this response is useful. If you can provide me with further information, I would be happy to provide further guidance. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3118OpenMr. Walter Arrowsmith, Administrative Assistant, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, P.O. Box 16520, Columbus, OH 43216; Mr. Walter Arrowsmith Administrative Assistant Bureau of Motor Vehicles P.O. Box 16520 Columbus OH 43216; Dear Mr. Arrowsmith: This is to memorialize the telephone conversation you had with Kath DeMeter of my staff on Thursday, October 4, 1979, concerning the motor vehicle manufacturers' certificate of origin. You indicated to Ms. DeMeter that the new standard certificate of orgin (sic) has an assignment form on the reverse side for the transfer from the first dealer to the consumer. This assignment contains odometer information, including identifiers of the vehicle, a reference to Federal law, a statement of the odometer reading, a statement that the reading is actual unless one of two other statements (mileage not actual or mileage over 99,999 miles) is checked, the names and addresses of the buyer and the seller, and the signature of the seller. Ms. DeMeter informed you that in order for the certificate to substitute for a separate Federal odometer disclosure statement, it must include the signature of the buyer. Ms. DeMeter also indicated that when the assignment form is being used to transfer the vehicle from the dealer to another, the odometer information is not required under Federal law.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law an Legislation; |
|
ID: aiam1125OpenMr. A. N. Schuppert, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc., 1331 S. Washington, Lansing, MI 48920; Mr. A. N. Schuppert Diamond Reo Trucks Inc. 1331 S. Washington Lansing MI 48920; Dear Mr. Schuppert: By petition of March 16, 1973, Diamond Reo requested the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration to delay implementation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, with respect to certain categories of large capacity trucks with high centers of gravity.; We are uncertain from your petition as to the defining characteristic of the vehicles that you would have us temporarily exempt from the standard. We are also uncertain as to the magnitude of the problem that is being encountered by the vehicles in question: there would seem to be a problem with high speed stops, but there are no indications as to whether the parking brakes and other required systems also present difficulties.; After considering the request, which asks relief from all provisions o the standard, the agency has concluded that an exception of such magnitude is not warranted and therefore denies the request. The agency makes no finding as to whether more limited relief may be appropriate, and does not consider the denial of the March 16 request to preclude the company from submitting petitions for relief from specific aspects of the standard.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4327OpenMr. Daniel Rosendahl, Vice-President, Target Import, Valkenburgerstraat 16, 1011LZ, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Mr. Daniel Rosendahl Vice-President Target Import Valkenburgerstraat 16 1011LZ Amsterdam Netherlands; Dear Mr. Rosendahl: On March 10 the agency received your petition of November 14, 1986, fo temporary exemption of the Target kit car from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As you have described your operation, 'these vehicles utilize remanufactured/reinforced, engines/chassis of 1960-1980 year, model Citroen 2CV, AMI, and DYANE, and then are equipped with brand new re-inforced bodies of Fiberglass and/or metal.'; The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to vehicles from time of manufacture up to their sale to first purchasers for purposes other than resale. Once a vehicle is in use, Federal standards no longer apply to it (other than a prohibition against rendering inoperative safety equipment originally installed). In our interpretations to kit car manufacturers, we have advised them that installation of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle previously in use does not create a 'new' vehicle subject to the Federal safety standards, and such vehicles are subject only to the laws of the individual States where they will be sold, licensed, and operated. This appears to be the exact situation represented by your fabricating operations. Because a 'used' vehicle is not legally required to comply with the safety standards, there is no obligation that its manufacturer must meet, and hence, petitions for temporary exemption from the safety standards are moot.; However, under the Act, there is na obligation upon any perso importing a 'used' vehicle into the United States to bring it into compliance with all safety standards that would have applied to it at the time of its manufacture had it been manufactured in the United States. It appears appropriate to establish the date of manufacture as that of the original chassis. Thus, the importer of a Target vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1987, and placed upon a chassis manufactured in 1980, would be required to bring it into compliance with all Federal safety standards in effect in 1980. On the other hand, if the chassis of the Target were manufactured before January 1, 1968, there would be no obligation to conform to Federal vehicles standards as none applied before that date (We view equipment standards somewhat differently, the tires, wheel covers, brake hoses, brake fluid, lamps, glazing, and seat belts if any, on otherwise uncovered vehicles must meet standards in effect at time of importation).; In summary, there is no legal requirement that the manufacturer of th Target comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is a requirement that the importer of such a vehicle bring the car into compliance with all such Federal safety standards that may have been in effect when the chassis was manufactured. But there are no provisions under which an importer of a Target can petition for exemptions from the safety standards. The exemption authority that exists relates to new motor vehicles, and is available only to the original manufacturer of such vehicles. It does not extend to vehicles that the agency considers 'used', nor to importers for resale who are not the original manufacturers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0364OpenMr. George Talin, President, Lynd-Talin Tire Company, 3000 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90807; Mr. George Talin President Lynd-Talin Tire Company 3000 Cherry Avenue Long Beach CA 90807; Dear Mr. Talin: This is in reply to your letter of May 10, 1971, concerning the Tir Identification and Record Keeping Regulation. Please accept my apology for not responding earlier.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers eac enforcement case on an individual basis. If a retreader could demonstrate that good faith attempts had been made to obtain the tin plate by May 22, 1971, and due to circumstances beyond his control he was unable to mark tires manufactured after May 22, 1971, with the required information, we would certainly take this into consideration before beginning any enforcement action.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.