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: aiam1602OpenMr. E. M. Bader, Director, Quality Assurance, B. F. Goodrich Tire Company, 500 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44318; Mr. E. M. Bader Director Quality Assurance B. F. Goodrich Tire Company 500 South Main Street Akron OH 44318; Dear Mr. Bader: This is to respond to the draft defect notification letter submitted b B. F. Goodrich at a meeting with NHTSA personnel on September 4, 1974. While we provided you with some preliminary comments at that time, our position regarding your notification is as stated in this letter.; We believe your letter fails to comply with 49 CFR, Part 577, 'Defec Notification' in several respects. Some of our comments are also directed at what we view as a lack of clarity in your letter arising, it seems to us, from some disorganization in the text.; The first sentence in your second paragraph does not follo satisfactorily the requirements of S 577.4(b)(1). This requirement should be met by simply stating, 'The B. F. Goodrich Tire Company has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in its Space Saver Spare tire.'; Section 577.4(c) requires the notification to describe the defect b including specified information. We believe your letter confuses the items of information and presents them in an order which clouds an understanding of the safety problem. As we understand your presentation of the facts, the item of motor vehicle equipment affected (S 577.4(c)(1)) is the tire, the malfunction that may occur (S 577.4(c)(2)) is an explosion of the tire, and the operating or other conditions that may cause the malfunction to occur (S 577.4(c)(3)) are damaged beads, excessive air pressure, and beads not seated properly on the rim. With respect to this latter requirement, we find the reference to the 'combination' of factors in your second paragraph, and your fourth paragraph, in which you state that 'some or all' of the causal conditions listed can produce the defect, to be inconsistent and too imprecise to conform to the requirement. In addition to describing factors which can singly cause an explosion, if certain combinations of factors must exist in order for the defect to occur these combinations should not be stated generally as you have done, but should be specifically described. Moreover, we indicated to you at the September 4 meeting that we disagree that broken beads and excessive pressure must exist in combination in order for an explosion to occur.; Most importantly, we cannot agree upon your characterization of th bolting of the tire to the wheel before inflation as a precaution the owner can take to reduce the chance that the malfunction will occur under S 577.4(c)(4). Both literally and by implication your second and fourth paragraphs read that if the tire is bolted to the vehicle before inflation, an explosion will not occur. The malfunction, however, is an explosion of the tire, not only those explosions which cause injury. While we agree that bolting the tire to the vehicle before inflation can potentially reduce the chance of injury, it should be characterized only in this fashion. Therefore, both on page 1 of your letter and in the instructions which you begin on page 3 for persons who have need of the tire before its inspection by Goodrich, you must make it absolutely clear that bolting the tire to the vehicle has no effect whatever on whether the tire will explode, but that bolting will serve only to reduce the chance of injury if an explosion occurs.; We have the following points with respect to the remaining provision of your letter. On page 2, in the first complete paragraph, beginning 'In the majority of usage situation...etc,' we find the use of the word 'majority' confusing. The implication to us is that in a minority of situations the danger is not reduced at all. This should be clarified.; The third complete paragraph on page 2 is also confusing. There is n apparent connection between its first and second sentences. If you are attempting to say that despite what earlier labels may say that the instructions provided in this letter should be followed, then this can be stated more clearly.; The use of the word 'solely' in the fourth paragraph on page 2 is disclaimer, prohibited by section 577.6, and should be stricken.; On page 3, we believe the requirements of section 577.4(e)(1) call fo more detail than you have provided in the third paragraph on page 3. We suggest you include a description of the inspection and test cycle. As we indicated to you on September 4, the second and third paragraphs could be combined for clarity. Finally, the second sentence in your second paragraph on page 3 should be reworded to indicate more clearly that the date you have inserted is the date by which repair facilities will have necessary parts and instructions. In its present wording the meaning of the sentence is unclear.; Apart from these deficiencies, we believe your letter conforms to 4 CFR Part 577. At the same time, we believe your letter unnecessarily obscures the safety problem, and hope that, apart from literal compliance with Part 577, this is eliminated in the letter sent to purchasers. You should note that our determination of the conformity of the letter to Part 577 does not in any way indicate our agreement with Goodrich's analysis of the safety defect. We will continue to look into this matter, as appropriate, in order to determine whether Goodrich's analysis of the defect, and its consequent remedy, are fair and accurate statements of the safety problem. You should be aware that if subsequent events do show that attributing the safety defect to a mounting problem does not adequately describe the defect, further notification may be required.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4953OpenMr. Russell J. Eisert 5317 Delano Court Cape Coral, FL 33904; Mr. Russell J. Eisert 5317 Delano Court Cape Coral FL 33904; "Dear Mr. Eisert: This responds to your letter of October 25, 1991 requesting a waiver from the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards so that you can purchase a new vehicle that has been modified to allow you to operate the vehicle from your wheelchair. The safety requirements for new light trucks and vans were upgraded as of September 1, 1991. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals like yourself, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 'to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs.' On January 9, 1992, this agency granted that petition. You should understand that the granting of a petition for rulemaking signifies that the agency believes a further review of the issues raised in the petition appears to have merit, but it is not a determination that the light truck and van crash test requirement should be amended. Any determination to amend the crash test requirement would be made in the course of a rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. By addressing the issue comprehensively, in response to this petition for rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to each of the individual requests, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection. However, we are aware that you and others need more immediate relief than rulemaking can offer. To afford more immediate relief, we announced in a January 21, 1992 letter to Representative Porter Goss that this agency will not conduct any crash testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. We have also notified the van converter mentioned in your letter ofthis policy. This should allow you and others to purchase new vehicles while the rulemaking action is pending. With regard to your request for a waiver to have the rear seats in the van you will purchase moved rearward of the side door, the agency is not aware of any reason that would prevent a van converter from making this modification in such a way that the rear seats would continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after they were moved. There is, therefore, no need for us to grant such a waiver. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: American International Conversions FAX 813/586-6627"; |
|
ID: aiam5641OpenMr. Jim Schroeder Graco Inc. P.O. Box 1441 Minneapolis, MN 55440; Mr. Jim Schroeder Graco Inc. P.O. Box 1441 Minneapolis MN 55440; Dear Mr. Schroeder: This responds to your inquiry about the Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) with which your trailer must comply. You state that your company plans to manufacture a trailer mounted striper that applies reflective paint stripes to roadways. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that your trailer will spend a significant amount of time traveling on public roads between job sites. Please note that we are returning the photographs attached to your letter that were marked confidential. As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the FMVSSs are promulgated. The statute defines the term motor vehicle as follows: Any vehicle driven 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. Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and telephone conversation that the trailer spends extended periods of time on the public roads moving between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be its primary purpose. The following Federal safety standards apply to trailers: Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which address conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers, and Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, while your vehicle is not required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. In addition as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA s safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam2184OpenFile; File; On January 23, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. Walt Robbin (750-2600) concerning the interpretation letter mailed from this office to him an January 20, 1976. (The subject of that letter was the application of Standard No. 109's labeling requirements to a 'Radial, Bias Ply Tire'.) Mr. Robbins asked three questions:; 1) Were the four labeling examples set out in the letter intended to b restrictive or merely a model, with respect to the cord materials used in the tires (e.g. would a similar label that specified '3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 POLYESTER RADIAL PLY' instead of an aramid radial ply also be permissible)? I explained that, in that respect, the examples were merely a model, so that his suggested alternative would be permissible.; 2) When would the rule that was discussed in the letter be issued? declined to give a prediction, explaining generally the uncertainties in the rulemaking process.; 3) What was the real reason for inclusion of the suggestion that h consult the FTC concerning advertising of the tires in question? I explained that he could take the sentence on its face and that the NHTSA was not, in the letter, taking any position on the use of the word 'radial' in the advertising of such tires.; Mark I. Schwimmer |
|
ID: aiam0443OpenMr. Kenneth H. Dickey, Electric Device Corporation, 266 Bradford Drive, Canfield, OH, 44406; Mr. Kenneth H. Dickey Electric Device Corporation 266 Bradford Drive Canfield OH 44406; Dear Mr. Dickey: This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1971, to Mr. Dougla Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning your request for an interpretation relative to your safety backing system and the Federal Standards.; The use of your School Bus Safety Backing System is neither require nor prohibited in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and the proposed Pupil Transportation Safety Standard. However, it would appear that the regulations of the individual States apply to the use of your system in those States.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5211OpenMr. Richard Muraski President/CEO Equa-Brake, Inc. 1105 Terminal Way, Suite 202 Reno, NV 89502; Mr. Richard Muraski President/CEO Equa-Brake Inc. 1105 Terminal Way Suite 202 Reno NV 89502; "Dear Mr. Muraski: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation about the use of your product, the Equa-Brake mechanical auxiliary air brake system. You stated that this product 'increases brake force and improves brake performance on all vehicles that are equipped with air brakes.' You were concerned about whether the use of your product would be affected by an agency decision to deny a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Washington Company. That petition had requested the agency to require a device that regulates air pressure differential between the two wheels on each axle (57 FR 29459, July 2, 1992). As explained below, neither the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems nor those of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), under which the standard was issued, prohibit the installation of your product in most situations. The one exception is that if your product is installed on a vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, neither the act of installation nor the operation of the device may render inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about auxiliary brake systems. However, since this device is tied to a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. If the Equa-Brake is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7. If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, 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. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). Your letter expressed concern about the effect of the agency's decision to deny the rulemaking petition submitted by the Washington Corporation. Please note that the Washington petition requested that the agency amend Standard No. 121 to require a device that regulates a brake system's air pressure differential between two wheels on each axle. In denying the petitioner's request to require such a device, the agency emphasized that its decision not to require a product in no way prohibited the optional installation of the device provided the vehicle continued to comply with the applicable standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0013OpenJames E. Rooks, Jr., Esq. Staff Attorney Association of Trial Lawyers of America 1050 31st Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20007-4499; James E. Rooks Jr. Esq. Staff Attorney Association of Trial Lawyers of America 1050 31st Street N.W. Washington DC 20007-4499; "Dear Mr. Rooks: This responds to your letter of March 27, 199 concerning the applicability of various motor vehicle safety standards to the repair or replacement of damaged motor vehicle windshields. You enclosed a copy of the 'Legal Advisory' column from the November 1986 issue of Glass magazine. That column stated that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA') advised the National Glass Association that 'federal windshield safety standards are not applicable to replacement windshield installations once vehicles have left their new car dealers' lots.' The column went on to state that 'no kind or amount of work on a damaged windshield renders it inoperable in violation of federal law.' Your letter asked whether NHTSA currently adheres to the above position with regard to two Federal motor vehicle safety standards: Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. In a subsequent telephone conversation with John Rigby of this office, you asked the agency also to address the applicability of these principles to Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these issues. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ('Act'), 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, introduce into interstate commerce or import any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), that prohibition does not apply 'after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment in good faith for purposes other than resale.' On the other hand, section 108(a)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicleequipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' With respect to Standards 212 and 216, which impose requirements applicable to completed motor vehicles, a manufacturer is not required to assure that the vehicles it manufactures remain in compliance after they have been sold for purposes other than resale. Moreover, a repair business that replaced a windshield that was previously damaged could not violate the 'render inoperative' provision of the Act, regardless of what sealant was used. As NHTSA stated in a September 3, l98l letter to the National Glass Dealers Association, even if it were somehow determined that the repaired vehicle did not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 212 or No. 216, there would be no violation of the 'render inoperative' provision of the Act. This is because the object or event that damaged the windshield in the first place had already rendered the windshield 'inoperative' with respect to these standards. See also an October 5, 1983 letter to Anthony M. Peterson of Lansing Auto Glass Company. However, if for some reason a repair business were to replace a windshield that was not previously damaged, it could be held liable under section 108(a)(2) if it knew that its action caused the vehicle to no longer comply with either standard. I would also like to deal with a relatively unlikely scenario. If a windshield needs to be repaired or replaced prior to the first sale to a consumer (e.g., due to breakage while en route from the manufacturer's factory to the dealer's showroom), the seller is required by section 108(a)(1)(A) to assure that the vehicle is brought into compliance with all applicable standards. The situation is somewhat different with respect to Standard No. 205, which establishes, inter alia, strength and light transmittance performance requirements that must be met by glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Not only must the glazing in new vehicles meet this standard, replacement glass must also comply. Thus, any person who installs motor vehicle glazing that is not certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 205 would violate section 108(a)(1)(A), regardless of whether the vehicle is new. This would be because the installer would be selling or otherwise introducing into interstate commerce an item of motor vehicle equipment (i.e., the glazing) that did not comply with an applicable safety standard. We have stated this interpretation in previous letters (most recently in our letter of March 14, 1991 to Loren Thompson). Finally, you asked in your letter 'whether these positions have yet been tested in court.' We are not aware of any litigation in which any of the interpretation letters cited above have been considered. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3853OpenMr. Ron Marion, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., P.O. Box 2450, 1408 Courtesy Road, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. Ron Marion Thomas Built Buses Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your recent correspondence concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. Your correspondence comprised two letters to this office. In your first letter, you asked two questions regarding the labeling requirements for emergency exits. Your second letter inquired into the provision of push-out windows in buses other than school buses.; Your first question concerns the labeling of emergency exits i non-school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Section 5.5.1 of the Standard requires labels for all emergency exits except for doors and roll-down windows.; The purpose of the emergency exit marking requirements of Standard No 217 is to identify for occupants the location and use of specially-installed emergency exits. In the case of buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 217 permits the emergency exit requirements to be met with a vehicle's doors and with windows which are manually operable to an open position that provides a specified area for egress. Standard roll-down windows generally meet these requirements. The agency has determined that the operation of standard roll- down windows and doors are generally familiar to persons who are old enough to read instructions. Thus there would be little justification for providing emergency exit markings for these exits. On the other hand, Section 5.5.1 provides that specially- installed emergency exits whose operation are not immediately obvious in such buses, such as push-out windows, are not exempted from the emergency exit identification requirement.; Your second question asked: >>>Would there be any labeling requirements for push-out windows, on school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, if installed in addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.1 since these push-out windows are not required by this section?<<<; The answer to your question depends on whether the additional window are designed or constructed as emergency exits. Standard No. 217 does not require that every exit installed in a school bus beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 must comply with the requirements applicable to school bus exits. On the other hand, additional emergency exits in school buses, beyond those required by Standard No. 217, must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses if the exit is intended as an emergency exit. These additional exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of the standard.; In your second letter to this agency you described a situation wher school bus contractors utilize school buses as general transit vehicles on charter trips when the buses are not in use for school purposes. You asked, 'Are these buses required to have push-out windows as mandated for non-school buses since they are manufactured and sold primarily as school buses?'; The answer to your question is no. The vehicles you described woul have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards if they are sold as school buses. Thus, these vehicles would only be subject to the standards applicable to school buses. Further, even though these vehicles are not subject to the safety standards applicable to vehicles other than school buses, I would note that Standard No 217 does not mandate push-out windows to be used for emergency exits in non-school buses. The agency determined that devices such as panels and doors which meet the emergency exit requirements would be as effective as push-out windows for emergency egress. Sliding emergency exits must, of course, comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 217. They must be capable of complying with the standard when the non-exit half of the window is either open or closed. Also, while the standard permits devices other than push-out windows to be used for emergency exits, the agency prefers the use of push-out emergency exits because they are less likely to 'bind up' during a side impact than sliding emergency exits.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5084OpenMr. J. Leslie Dobson Owner McKinney Vehicle Services 8400 East Slauson Avenue Pico Rivera, CA 90660; Mr. J. Leslie Dobson Owner McKinney Vehicle Services 8400 East Slauson Avenue Pico Rivera CA 90660; Dear Mr. Dobson: This responds to your letter dated October 27, 1992 in which you asked how your company would go about lowering the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) assigned to some 'Bobtail' trucks. Your letter explained that your company is a truck rental company that owns about 50 Bobtail trucks with a GVWR of approximately 28,000 pounds each. According to your letter, your company's rental business has decreased dramatically since the State of California's requirement for a commercial driver's license to operate vehicles with a GVWR of greater than 26,000 pounds took effect. You would now like to lower the GVWR of your trucks to 26,000 pounds so that the trucks would no longer be subject to the commercial driver's licensing requirements. In a March 19, 1991, letter to Mr. Jerry Tassan, the owner of a truck rental company in San Francisco, I explained that the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the vehicle's original manufacturer, a final stage manufacturer, or an alterer. In a July 1, 1992, letter to Mr. Gene Fouts, I explained that modifications to an assigned GVWR should be made only when the manufacturer had made an error regarding the originally assigned GVWR, not for reasons related to the GVWR threshold of the commercial driver's license program. I have enclosed copies of both these letters for your information. Accordingly, I do not believe there is any way whereby your leasing company could lower the GVWR assigned to your Bobtail trucks. If you have any further questions about the subject of GVWR, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam2741OpenMrs. Dorinda Givens, Eagle Equipment, Company, P.O. Box 960, Stockton, CA 95202; Mrs. Dorinda Givens Eagle Equipment Company P.O. Box 960 Stockton CA 95202; Dear Mrs. Givens: Our Regional Office in San Francisco has forwarded to us for reply you request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements.; The question you raised is who executes the odometer statement when th vehicles are owned by and registered in your name, but turned over to a leasing company who in turn sells the vehicles. Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to issue an odometer disclosure statement to each transferee. The transferor is defined in 49 CFR Section 580.3 as 'any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle . . . .' Therefore, you as the owner of the vehicle are required to execute the statement. However, since you never see the vehicles, but rely on the leasing company to sell them for you, you may also rely on the leasing company to act as your agent and execute the odometer statements for you. Since you are the legal owner of the vehicles, it is your responsibility to execute the statements. If you are concerned about the possibility that the leasing company may alter the odometer or make an improper disclosure, you may find it advisable to protect yourself by requiring the leasing company to indemnify you in the event of liability under the Act.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.