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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam4637OpenMr. Randy Blackman Per-Lux Inc. 1242 E. Edna Place Covina, CA 91724; Mr. Randy Blackman Per-Lux Inc. 1242 E. Edna Place Covina CA 91724; "Dear Mr. Blackman: This responds to your letter asking for informatio about the application of Federal safety standards to a head restraint that attaches to the rear window of pickup trucks. I hope the following information is helpful. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraint device sold as an item of 'aftermarket' equipment for pickup trucks. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed), would also affect your head restraint if your product were installed by a commercial business on either new or used vehicles. A manufacturer installing your head restraint device on a new truck prior to certifying the truck as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as required by the Safety Act, has certain responsibilities relating to that obligation to certify. Standard No. 302 establishes flammability resistance requirements for trucks that must be met by certain vehicle components, including head restraints. The new vehicle manufacturer that installs your product on the new vehicle would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the head restraint device conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. A commercial business wishing to install the head restraint on new or used vehicles would be subject to statutory considerations that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle without violating the Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. In addition to the materials described above, I am also enclosing a Federal Register notice (53 FR 50047) that NHTSA issued on December 13, 1988, proposing to extend the applicability of Standard No. 202 to light trucks and vans. NHTSA has proposed to make this extension effective September 1, 1991. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding by this fall. We are also returning herewith the sketch you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information which you asked us not to publicly disclose. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1065OpenMr. Bill Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Bill Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1973, requesting a interpretation of the words ...unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount in total square inches...' in S5.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release'.; We believe your paragraph stating, The area credited to an emergenc exit must be the clear opening less the projected area of any obstruction in front of the exit', to be an appropriate interpretation of the phrase. We do not believe that the existence of some obstruction prevents an otherwise unobstructed opening from being used to fulfill the requirements of paragraph S5.2. You are correct in stating that whether such a window is unobstructed can be determined by utilizing the ellipsoid specified in paragraph S5.4.; You indicate in your letter you believe that if your interpretatio were applied to school buses it would result in a significant loss of seating capacity. It does not appear to us, however, that the reduction of the area of the unobstructed opening by the projected area of the obstruction, as shown in your photograph, will be significant.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3058OpenMr. D. K. Haenchen, Volkswagen of America, 7111 E. Eleven Mile Road, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. D. K. Haenchen Volkswagen of America 7111 E. Eleven Mile Road Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1979, regarding th photographic procedures, announced in Docket 73-19, Notice 24 (43 FR 40229, September 11, 1978), to be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in evaluating shielding panel damage in compliance testing for the Part 581 *Bumper Standard* (49 CFR Part 581). You ask where the camera is located when taking the 45 degree angle photograph specified in Notice 24 under the heading Camera Position. You also ask where the three photoflood lamps specified in Notice 24 under the heading Illumination are positioned.; Where the plan of the shielding panel area under examination i nominally horizontal, NHTSA positions the camera and lamps relative to the vertical reference line running through the center of the suspect area. Where the plane of the shielding panel area is nominally vertical and perpendicular to the longitudinal center line of the vehicle, the camera and lamps will be positioned relative to the horizontal reference line running through the center of the suspect area, parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal center line. Where the plane of the suspect area is nominally vertical and parallel to the longitudinal center line of the vehicle, the camera and lamps are positioned relative to the horizontal reference line running through the center of the suspect area, perpendicular to the vehicle's longitudinal center line.; In taking the 90 degree angle photograph, NHTSA positions the camera o the reference line so that the foremost point of the camera lens is six feet from the point at which the reference line intersects the surface of the suspect area (point S). In taking the 45 degree angle photograph, NHTSA positions the camera on a line which intersects the reference line at a 45 degree angle at point S, and which lies in a vertical plane containing the reference line. Where the reference line is vertical, the camera is positioned on a line which lies in a plane parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal center line. The camera is positioned so that the foremost point of the camera lens is six feet from point S. A camera position is chosen which provides an unobstructed view of the suspect area.; The two main photoflood lamps are positioned facing the exterio surface of the suspect area with the filament of each lamp ten feet from point S. Except where the reference line is vertical, the two main lamps are positioned in the horizontal plane containing point S, on opposite sides of the vertical plane containing the reference line, so that the lines connecting the lamp filaments with point S form a 45 degree angle with the reference line.; Where the reference line is vertical, the two main lamps are positione in the vertical plane containing point S which is perpendicular to the vehicle's longitudinal center line. The lamps are positioned on opposite sides of the vertical plane containing point S which is parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal center line, so that the lines connecting the lamp filaments with point S form 45 degree angles with the reference line.; NHTSA has determined that the third photoflood lamp described in Notic 24, to be employed for fill-in lighting, is unnecessary and this lamp is not used by the agency.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4267OpenJanet Cunningham, Executive Vice President, Washington State Auto Dealers Association, P.O. Box 58170, Seattle, WA 98188; Janet Cunningham Executive Vice President Washington State Auto Dealers Association P.O. Box 58170 Seattle WA 98188; Dear Ms. Cunningham: This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1986, concerning th new Federal odometer law and the Washington Attorney General's proposed legislation.; As you know, on October 28, 1986, President Reagan signed into law th Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, P.L. 99-579, which amends Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1981 *et seq*. Beginning April 29, 1989, a motor vehicle may not be licensed in a State unless the transferee includes with the application for title the transferor's title. If the transferor's title contains the space for the transferor to disclose the mileage as required by Federal regulation, the mileage disclosure must be included on the title and it must be signed and dated by the transferor. If the transferor's title does not contain a space for the transferor to disclose the mileage, the transferor must issue a separate odometer disclosure statement. In addition, the law provides that, beginning April 29, 1989, all motor vehicle titles issued must meet the following requirements.; >>>1. Titles must be set forth by means of a secure printing process o other secure process.; 2. Titles must indicate required mileage disclosure information. 3. Titles must contain space for the transferee to disclose, in th event of future transfer, the mileage at the time of such future transfer and to sign and date such disclosure.<<<; A copy of the Act is enclosed for your reference. We are aware that the titling and disclosure provision of the new Ac will require changes in many state motor vehicle titling laws and title forms. For that reason, the Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to provide assistance to any State in revising its laws to meet the new Federal criteria. It is our desire to cooperate with the states to the maximum extent possible, to assure a smooth and timely transition to the new Act.; NHTSA intends to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to implement the ne Act and resolve technical issues. Because that process will take several months, we recommended to the States through the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators that they may wish to defer changes to their vehicle title forms and titling procedures until the rulemaking has been completed. In that way, they will be in a better position to assure full compliance with the new Act and implementing regulations.; We have been advised by the Washington Attorney General's Office however, that the State law which local prosecutors currently enforce is a relatively weak statute and that strong State odometer laws are needed as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, in an effort to assist the State in combatting odometer fraud, I offer the following comments to point out inconsistencies between portions of the proposed State legislation and the new Federal law.; Section 3 of the proposed legislation concerns the issuance of odomete disclosure statements by owners, lessees and lessors. While Section 3 does not apply to vehicles leased for a period of less than six months, Section 2(e) of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 defines a leased motor vehicles as 'any motor vehicle which is leased to a person for a term of at least 4 months by a lessor who has leased 5 or more motor vehicles in the past 12 months.' Furthermore, under Section 2(e) of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, lessors are required to provide lessees written notice regarding mileage disclosure requirements and penalties for failure to comply with them. The proposed legislation includes no analogous provision.; In addition to the above comments that pertain to the new Federal law I also offer the following comments regarding differences between the proposed State law and the Federal law and regulations now in effect.; Section 7 of the proposed legislation states as follows: >>>(1) The department shall adopt an odometer disclosure statement tha complies with the federal motor vehicle information and cost savings act of 1972, P.L. No. 12-513, as amended.<<<; However, the minimum requirements contained in Section 7 of th proposed legislation vary from the requirements of the regulation promulgated under the statute. Federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. S 580.4(a)(3), requires the disclosure of the transferor's current address. In addition, 49 C.F.R. S580.4(b) requires that the odometer disclosure statement refer to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and shall state that incorrect information may result in civil liability and civil or criminal penalties. (Reference to State law is acceptable in lieu of a reference to Federal law.) Furthermore, 49 C.F.R. S580.4(e) states that 'The transferee shall acknowledge receipt of the disclosure statement by signing it.' Neither the transferor's current address nor a penalty notice and signature are required by the proposed legislation.; Section 7(k) of the proposed legislation requires the disclosure o both miles and kilometers when the odometer is 'altered to reflect miles instead of 'kilometers.' This Agency has not required any similar type of disclosure. We have determined that 15 U.S.C. S1987 could be relied upon to lawfully replace odometers which register kilometers travelled with those that register miles travelled. (To convert the odometer reading from kilometers to miles, multiple (sic) the kilometer reading by .62.) It is NHTSA's position that transferors who convert the odometers from kilometers to miles should check the first box of the first set of certifications which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odomete reading as stated above reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle described below.<<<; Furthermore, these transferors should check the second box in th second set of certifications which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer was altered for repair o replacement purposes while in my possession, and that the mileage registered on the repaired or replacement odometer was identical to that before such service.<<<; With regard to Section 4 and the question you raised in your letter, understand that the Section has been amended so that the dealer's disclosure will be included on the assignment and title.; I hope these comments assist you in your efforts to ensure th coordination of Federal and State odometer laws so that no undue burden is placed upon your members.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4549OpenSpencer A. Darby State-Lite Mfg. Co. 6220-30 Gross Point Rd Niles, IL 60648; Spencer A. Darby State-Lite Mfg. Co. 6220-30 Gross Point Rd Niles IL 60648; "Dear Mr. Darby: This is a response to your letter asking for a interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR /571.125). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particularly interested in learning how Standard 125 affects the use of warning devices for vehicles that are 80 inches wide, and that travel in interstate commerce. Before I answer your specific questions, I would like to present some background information about the authority of this agency which may help you better to understand my answers. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency authority to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. When a standard is established for items of motor vehicle equipment, such as Standard 125 is with respect to warning devices, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that 'no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction, or import into the United States' any warning device manufactured after the effective date of Standard 125 that does not comply with Standard 125. Accordingly, Standard 125 regulates the manufacture, distribution, and sale of warning devices. Note that Standard 125 does not regulate the use of warning devices, because the Safety Act does not give this agency any authority to regulate the operator or operation of any vehicle. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does have authority to regulate some motor vehicle operators and operations. Thus, to the extent that you have any questions about possible Federal regulations regarding the use of warning devices, you should address those questions to the Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway Administration, located in Room 4213, 400 7th Street, Washington DC 20590. I can only answer questions about how Standard 125 affects your company as a manufacturer of warning devices. Your questions involve the correct interpretation of S5.1.5 of Standard 125, which reads as follows: S5.1.5. Each warning device shall have instructions for its erection and display. (a) The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed. (b) Instructions for each warning device shall include a recommendation that the driver activate the vehicular hazard warning signal lamps before leaving the vehicle to erect the warning device. (c) Instructions shall include the illustration depicted in Figure 3 indicating recommended positioning. Figure 3, to which S5.1.5(c) refers, shows a disabled vehicle on the side of the road with the warning device positioned one hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle. Your first question was why Figure 3 in Standard 125 shows a vehicle with only one warning device behind the disabled vehicle, since the FHWA requires vehicles over 80 inches wide to carry three warning devices. The answer is that Standard 125 applies to warning devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, not just those that are over 80 inches wide. Thus, the postioning shown for the warning device in Figure 3 is a recommendation for the proper positioning of a single warning device carried in any vehicle. I note that NHTSA originally proposed to require seven different Figures showing recommended positioning of warning devices for different vehicle types on various highway configurations. In the final rule establishing Standard 125, NHTSA decided that a single figure was sufficient to show the user how to position an erected warning device behind any vehicle type on any highway configuration. See 37 FR 5038, March 9, 1972. As a part of your first question, you stated that your company includes figures showing how to position three warning devices for a disabled truck on a divided highway and on a non-divided highway in addition to Figure 3. You asked if these additional figures are permitted by Standard 125. The answer to this question is yes. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to provide additional information, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. In this case, we have no reason to believe that vehicle operators would be confused or misled by information about how to position three warning devices if they have them. Therefore, Standard 125 does not prohibit the inclusion of these additional figures in your instructions. Your second question was whether you are required to attach the instructions to the warning device itself, on warning devices sold for use with vehicles under 80 inches wide. The answer to your question is yes. S5.1.5(a) explicitly states: 'The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed.' This requirement applies to all warning devices, not just to those for use by vehicles more than 80 inches wide. Thus, if the instructions were located on the inside cover of the container, as suggested in your letter, the warning device would not comply with Standard 125. Your third question was whether NHTSA should amend Standard 125 to include additional illustrative figures showing recommended positioning for warning devices used in vehicles over 80 inches wide. We do not believe there is any reason to do so. As noted above, NHTSA proposed adopting seven figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices, but determined in the final rule that the single figure provided sufficient information to show users how to position the warning device in relation to any disabled vehicle. As also noted above, manufacturers of warning devices are permitted to include additional illustrative figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices with particular vehicle types on particular highways. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0859OpenMr. R. C. Rittersporn, Sales Manager, Sealy of the Carolinas, Inc., P.O. Box 1009, Lexington, NC, 27292; Mr. R. C. Rittersporn Sales Manager Sealy of the Carolinas Inc. P.O. Box 1009 Lexington NC 27292; Dear Mr. Rittersporn: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'.; You ask whether the Standard applies to slide-in campers. The answer i that it does not. You also ask about the effective date of the Standard. Standard No. 302 was issued on December 9, 1970, and became effective with respect to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1972.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2864OpenMr. Alberto Negro, Fiat, Research & Development - U.S.A. Branch, Parklane Towers West Suite 1210, Dearborn, MI 48126; Mr. Alberto Negro Fiat Research & Development - U.S.A. Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn MI 48126; Dear Mr. Negro: This responds to your June 16, 1978, letter asking whether manufacturer is permitted to list on the certification label required by Part 567, *Certification*, the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) in kilograms as well as pounds. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has permitted the use of kilograms on the certification label as long as the label continues to list the GAWR in pounds also.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3776OpenMr. Duane W. Duvall, 901 North Beach Road, Bow, WA 98232; Mr. Duane W. Duvall 901 North Beach Road Bow WA 98232; Dear Mr. Duvall: We have received your letter of October 27, 1983, informing us of you plans to provide a front-end replacement kit for 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas. You have asked whether incorporating a 1973 bumper mounting hardware will meet safety regulations. You have also asked for a copy of front lighting requirements, and for information on how you may certify your kit for national distribution.; As you have not provided us with a description of all equipment item in the kit, I can offer only general guidance. There are very few requirements for fabricators of kits intended to modify used vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are of two types: those that apply to vehicle systems, and those that apply to individual equipment items. The so-called 'bumper standard' is an example of a systems standard. Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, which applied to passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1972, and September 1, 1978, did not directly apply to the bumper itself but established a level of damage resistance to be met by the vehicle in low-speed frontal impacts.; On the other hand, the vehicle lighting standard applies to bot lighting systems and replacement lighting equipment. The primary statutory obligation of a kit supplier lies in this area--to determine if any item of equipment in the kit is covered by an equipment standard, and then to insure that the item meets the standard. For example, Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, required 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas to be equipped with sealed beam headlamps. Were unsealed European headlamps to be furnished as part of the kit, that sale would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Other equipment standards cover brake hoses, tires, brake fluids, glazing, and seat belts. Usually the manufacturer of equipment items covered by standards will certify compliance with Federal requirements by marking them with the symbol 'DOT'. In that event, no recertification by the kit supplier is required.; A further important obligation of a kit supplier is to insure tha safety-related defects are absent, or do not develop, in any motor vehicle equipment that he fabricates. If such occur, he is required to notify purchasers and remedy the defects.; There is also a provision of the Safety Act that has some relevance t your operation. Although a vehicle owner may modify his car in any manner he chooses, a restriction is established on modifications by others. That restriction is that 'no device or element of design' added to a vehicle enabling it to comply with a safety standard shall be 'rendered inoperative in whole or in part.' Thus, were a repair shop to remove the Vega front end and replace it with yours, the shop must insure that the Vega upon reassembly remains in compliance with the standards that originally applied to it. Although the kit supplier is not required under the Safety Act to insure that the Vega continues to comply with Standard No. 215, such insurance obviously assists the modifier in meeting its Federal responsibilities, and your incorporation of a 1973 bumper and attachments is helpful. The modified Vega must also continue to meet Federal lighting requirements, such as being equipped with front side marker lamps, and having no cover or other object over the headlamps when they are in use.; To assist you, I enclose copies of Standards Nos. 108 and 215 as the were in effect on October 1, 1977, the requirements were substantially the same for the other years in which you are interested. There is no charge and I am returning your check. If you have further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4119OpenMichael A. Doherty, Esq., Kassel, Neuwirth & Geiger, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022; Michael A. Doherty Esq. Kassel Neuwirth & Geiger 845 Third Avenue New York NY 10022; Dear Mr. Doherty: This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in whic you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* (UTQGS). Specifically, you stated that your firm is the registered agent for a foreign tire manufacturer and that you would like a clarification of what information the manufacturer is required to provide to this agency under the UTQGS.; Before responding specifically to the statements in your letter, would like to point out that the requirements for tire manufacturers to furnish UTQGS information to this agency are set forth in three different regulatory provisions. The first of these is 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2), which provides: 'Each brand name owner of tires and each manufacturer of tires for which there is no brand name owner shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to the ... tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before it is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.' This language makes clear that the only information the tire manufacturers must provide to this agency is information that will be provided for examination by prospective purchasers in accordance with 49 CFR S575.6(c).; The second regulatory provision addressing information to be provide by tire manufacturers is 49 CFR S575.6(c). That section provides that the tire manufacturer shall provide each of its dealers with a brochure setting forth the UTQGS information for each of its tires offered for sale by that dealer. The third regulatory provision is 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii), which requires that the information required by S575.6(c) shall list all possible grades for tires and restate verbatim the explanation for each performance area in which the tires are graded, as specified in Figure 2 of S575.104, although not necessarily in the same format as Figure 2. This section also requires that the information clearly and unambiguously indicate the grade in each performance area assigned to each of the manufacturer's tires sold by the dealer.; With this background, I will now address each of your statements, i the order they were presented in your letter. Each of my explanations will cite the applicable regulatory provision that is the authority for that explanation.; 1. To register each new tire design, or each change in the applicabl UTQG information with respect to an already registered tire design, the tire manufacturer must submit to DOT ten (10) copies of a brochure containing the tire design and UTQG information for the tire including the information set forth in the three paragraphs of 49 CFR S575.104, Figure 2, Parts I and II of the Regulations.; Response: Tire manufacturers are not required to 'register' tir designs with the agency. The manufacturers are only required to provide this agency with advance copies of the UTQGS information that will be furnished to their dealers. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2). If the tire manufacturer wishes to add a new tire design to the UTQGS information previously supplied to the agency, or to change some of the previously supplied information, the tire manufacturer must furnish this agency with 10 copies of a brochure showing *all* of the manufacturer's tire designs, including those designs for which the previously submitted information is unchanged, and the grades assigned to those tire designs. 49 CFR S575.6(c). This brochure must also include the explanations for the various possible grades set forth in Figure 2 of S575.104. 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a typical brochure furnished to this agency by a tire manufacturer.; 2. Such brochures must be sent to all U.S. dealers of th manufacturer's tires and be delivered to purchasers when they examine and/or buy the manufacturer's tires. The brochures must be sent to the dealers with the first lot of each new design.; Response: The brochures must be sent to all dealers of th manufacturer's tires and furnished to all prospective and actual purchasers of those tires upon request. Brochures incorporating information on new tire designs must be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires not later than the first day on which the manufacturer authorizes the tires to be put on general public display and sold to consumers. 49 CFR S575.6(c).; 3. The ten (10) copies of the UTQG brochure (sic) must be submitted t DOT at least 30 days before such brochure is first provided to tire purchasers for examination.; Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2). 4. Photographs of tires are not required to be submitted to DOT. Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requiremen that photographs of tires be provided to this agency.; 5. UTQG labels are not required to be submitted to DOT. Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requiremen that UTQGS labels be provided to this agency.; 6. If a tire manufacturer intends to market a tire that is alread registered under a new or private brand name, all that is required is a letter to DOT setting forth the pattern code, tire size(s) and UTQG characteristics of the tire already registered and indicating that the tire will be sold under the additional brand name.; Response: This statement is inaccurate. If changed marketing practice by the tire manufacturer cause the UTQGS brochures submitted to its dealers and this agency to be either incomplete or incorrect, the tire manufacturer must revise its brochure. Ten copies of the revised brochure must be submitted to this agency 30 days before the marketing change takes effect, and revised brochures must be provided to each of the manufacturer's dealers not later than the day on which the marketing change takes effect. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2). The tire manufacturer may enclose a letter with its brochure explaining the change, but such a letter is not required.; 7. If a private brand tire made by the tire manufacturer gets a ne tire design, the manufacturer does not have to provide the updated UTQG information to DOT -- the brand name owner for the tire design would be required to provide the information.; Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2). Should you have any further questions or need more information in thi area, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3326OpenMr. Patrick J. O'Connor, P.O. Box 905, 10 East Court Street, Doylestown, PA 18901; Mr. Patrick J. O'Connor P.O. Box 905 10 East Court Street Doylestown PA 18901; Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your letter of July 2, 1980, requesting informatio regarding manufacturing standards for front bucket seats on passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if there are any standards that were applicable to 1969-model Mustangs, particularly with respect to the pivot pin brackets on seats in these vehicles.; The initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were issued in 196 and became effective January 1, 1968. Included in these initial standards was Standard No. 207, *Anchorages of Seats--Passenger Cars* (copy enclosed). Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements in terms of overall seat strength. You will note that there are no requirements for specific components of the seat, however, such as pivot pin brackets. The Federal safety standards are generally specified in terms of performance requirements which allow manufacturers to use any designs they choose. If the Mustang with which you are concerned was manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the manufacturer would have had to certify that the vehicle was in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 207.; I am also enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 as it i currently written, since the standard has been amended several times since it was first issued. I hope you will find this information helpful.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.