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: aiam4644OpenMr. Rolf Duerr Project Engineer Voith Transmissions, Inc. P.O. Box 712 York, PA 17405; Mr. Rolf Duerr Project Engineer Voith Transmissions Inc. P.O. Box 712 York PA 17405; "Dear Mr. Duerr: This is in response to your letter requestin Department of Transportation 'approval' of a fitting to be used in air brake systems in conjunction with your company's product, a driveline brake retarder. I apologize for the delay in this response. Your letter explained that your company's brake retarder is designed to be attached to the air brake system on trucks or buses by means of a fitting, and enclosed a sample of the fitting you plan to use. You asked for DOT approval of the fitting. As explained below, whether the fitting and associated air hoses are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) depends upon how the fittings are attached to the vehicle's air brake system. This agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106, copy enclosed), which applies to motor vehicle brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. Your letter did not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion as to whether or not the air lines and end fittings used with your product would be considered 'brake hoses' and 'brake hose end fittings' subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106. It has been NHTSA's long-standing position that accessory air lines and end fittings, such as those used in your product, are 'brake hoses' and 'brake hose end fittings' only if a failure of the line or fitting would result in a loss of pressure in the vehicle's brake system. (See the enclosed June 5, 1987 letter to Albert Schwarz, and the August 3, 1984 letter to Terry Teeter). Accordingly, if a failure of the accessory lines or fittings used with your product could result in a loss of pressure in the brake system, the hoses and fittings are subject to all the provisions of Standard No. 106. In this case, the Safety Act specifies that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any of those hoses or end fittings unless those hoses and end fittings comply with all of the applicable requirements in Standard No. 106. NHTSA has no authority to certify, endorse, or approve in advance any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including the hoses and end fittings used for this product. Instead, under the Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests, the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care when making the certification. Once your company has determined that these hoses and end fittings comply with the requirements of Standard No. 106, the Standard requires you to mark these products with the symbol 'DOT' to show your company's certification of compliance. This agency enforces the requirements of Standard No. 106 by randomly purchasing brake hoses and end fittings that have been certified as complying with Standard No. 106. The certified products are then tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the products pass these tests, no further actions are taken. On the other hand, if the accessory air line running to your product is isolated from the air brake system by means such as a check valve, the hoses and fittings used with your product are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106. In this case, your company would not be required to certify that the hoses and fittings used with your product comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 106. You would, however, be considered a 'manufacturer' of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either: (1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed, or (2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect. Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. Similarly, if this product were subject to Standard No. 106, your company would be required to notify owners and remedy without charge to those owners any noncompliance of your product with the requirements of Standard No. 106, as well as remedying any safety-related defect. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3928OpenMr. Koji Tokunaga, Manager, Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc., 21415 Civic Center Drive, Southfield, MI 48076; Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager Engineering Isuzu Motors America Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield MI 48076; Dear M. Tokunaga: This responds to your letter concerning an amendment to Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Controls and Displays*, which became effective on an optional basis on July 27, 1984, and becomes effective on a mandatory basis on September 1, 1987. The answers to your questions are provided below.; By way of background information, this agency does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Your first question asked about the identification requirements for headlamp beam control that is separate from the master lighting switch. You asked how such a control should be identified and whether it is subject to the standard's identification requirements if it controls only the headlamps and not the taillamps. As discussed below, such a control should be identified by either identifying word or identifying symbol, whether or not the headlamp beam control operates the taillamps. The specific word or symbol is at the option of the manufacturer. Additional words or symbols may be provided for purposes of clarity at the discretion of the manufacturer.; Section S5.2.1 states in relevant part: >>>Vehicle controls shall be identified as follows: (a) ... any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 tha has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol. Any such control for which no symbol is shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2, if such word abbreviation is shown. Words or symbols in addition to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. Any such control for which column 2 of Table 1 and/or column 3 of Table 1 specifies 'Mfr. Option' shall be identified by the manufacturer's choice of a symbol, word or abbreviation, as indicated by that specification in column 2 and/or column 3. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The identification shall, under the conditions of S6, be visible to the driver and, except as provided in S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.2, appear to the driver perceptually upright.<<<; As your letter noted, controls for 'Headlamps and Taillamps' are amon those listed in column 1 of Table 1. That table specifies that identifying words or abbreviations or identifying symbols are at the manufacturer's option, and includes a footnote stating that separate identification is not required if those lamps are controlled by a master lighting switch. It is our opinion that the term 'Headlamps and Taillamps' includes controls which operate only the headlamps. Therefore, identification in the form of word or symbol must be provided for such a control; Your second question asked about the identification requirements for master lighting switch control for which there are three positions. In the first position, all lights are off, in the second position, all lights are on except for the headlamps, and in the third position, all lights are on. Your question was asked in reference to a drawing showing two types of switches (with two proposed methods of identification for each switch). The first type of switch, which you referred to as a push button switch, consists of three buttons directly adjacent to one another. The second type of switch, which you referred to as a rotary switch, consist of a switch at the end of a stalk, which rotates about the axis of the stalk to provide the three positions. You asked about two alternative interpretations concerning the identification requirements for these controls: (1) whether the master lighting switch symbol must be indicated in the position of the headlamp mode or (2) whether it is instead permissible to use the optional headlamp and taillamp symbol given in Table 1(a) provided that the master lighting switch symbol is affixed nearby. As discussed below, the master lighting switch symbol need not be indicated in the position of the headlamp mode so long as that symbol is on or adjacent to the switch.; Section S5.2.1, quoted above with respect to your first question, i also relevant to this question. Master lighting switches are among the controls listed in column 1 of Table 1, and an identifying symbol is specified by column 3. Under section S5.2.1, therefore, manufacturers must identify master lighting switches by the specified symbol and place the symbol on or adjacent to the master lighting switch. It is our opinion that each of the designs discussed by your letter represents one mater lighting switch, with three positions. Standard No. 101 permits the specified symbol to be placed anywhere on or adjacent to the master lighting switch and does not require the placement of the symbol to indicate the position of the headlamps mode. Manufacturers are not required to provide any identification other than the specified symbol for master lighting switch, it is our opinion that all four designs would be permitted by the standard.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1915OpenMs. Karen Holliday, Public Information Officer & Legislative Liaison, Oklahoma Highway Safety Program, 1118 United Founders Tower, Oklahoma City, OK 73112; Ms. Karen Holliday Public Information Officer & Legislative Liaison Oklahoma Highway Safety Program 1118 United Founders Tower Oklahoma City OK 73112; Dear Ms. Holliday: Pursuant to your conversation of May 9, 1975, with John Womack, I a enclosing a list of companies who have registered with us as manufacturers of motorcycle helmets. The list is subject to change as manufacturers enter and leave the business, and does not include manufacturers who have neglected to follow our identification requirements. If your agency intends to follow this list, you should take care to keep it current.; The list is not an 'approved' list, but rather a list of manufacturer who are certifying the compliance of their products to Federal standards. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.*), each person who manufactures a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment to which a Federal safety standard applies must manufacture his product in accordance with the standard. Our motorcycle helmet standard (Standard No. 218) went into effect on March 1, 1974, with respect to the medium-sized helmets that constitute about 50 percent of helmets sold. All manufacturers on the list who make helmets in that size range must therefore meet the standard and affix a label to the helmet certifying its compliance. To regulate these helmets at the State level, it would be easiest to specify that they be certified in accordance with Standard No. 218.; The balance of the helmet population, however, is not presently subjec to Federal Standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is well along in rulemaking to cover all helmets, but it has not yet issued a final standard. Until a Federal standard is issued, all helmets outside the regulated size range may be sold without certification. The reference in Oklahoma's bill to Federal standards would therefore impose requirements on only a portion of the helmets in the State.; Before the issuance of the Federal standard, the dominant industr standard was Standard No. Z-90.1- 1966 *Protective Headgear for Vehicular Users*, adopted by the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York. In addition to the Z-90 standard, the Snell Standard, a more rigorous standard, has been administered by the Snell Memorial Foundation, Inc., 761 Laurel Drive, Sacramento, California. Most helmets made by reputable manufacturers in the years immediately before the effective date of the Federal standard on March 1, 1974, were certified as conforming either to Z-90 or to Snell and labeled to that effect. With respect to the helmet population now in use, it would therefore be possible for the Administrator to specify helmets that are certified as conforming to either ANSI Standard Z-90, the Snell Foundation specifications, or the Federal standard.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0607OpenMr. Clyde D. Parrott, Design Engineer, Cosco Household Products, Inc., 2525 State Street, Columbus, IN 47201; Mr. Clyde D. Parrott Design Engineer Cosco Household Products Inc. 2525 State Street Columbus IN 47201; Dear Mr. Parrott: This is in reply to your letter of January 12, l972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Seating Systems.' You ask specific questions, enclosing 3 diagrams, regarding the application of certain provisions of the standard to a child seat you wish to build. You state that this seat in its present form is composed of a tubular steel frame, and has a molded plastic shell to seat the child, to provide head restraint, and to assist in containing the child under lateral decelerations.; You ask whether the shell is a rigid component, stating that it wil most probably be manufactured of polyethylene of about .100 inch thickness, and will be deformable by hand. We believe that such a shell could be considered a non- rigid component. There is not at present a definition of 'rigid' in the standard and manufacturers should rely on generally available definitions of the term in determining whether or not components are rigid.; You state further that in those areas where the shell contacts th tubular frame it is unquestionably rigid, and ask whether energy-absorbing material could be applied between the frame and the shell, rather than between the shell and the child as specified in S4.10 of the standard. In the particular case you present, it is not clear whether the rigidity of the shell is inherent or results because of its attachment to the frame. If by cushioning this attachment the rigidity will be eliminated, we would no longer consider the component to be rigid. However, the amount of cushioning needed would depend upon the amount necessary to eliminate the rigidity, and would not necessarily be the 1/2-inch thickness specified in S4.10 for covering rigid components. This determination would be for the manufacturer to make, based upon his analysis of when the rigidity has been removed from the component.; With reference to the question presented on sketch 1, we believe it i answered in the preceding paragraphs. Concerning sketch 2 you ask what the standard required at point N, where there is 'essentially no energy-absorbing material between the bottom of the groove and the rigid tube.' S4.10 of the standard requires rigid components that may contact the head or torso, with certain exceptions, to be 'covered' with energy-absorbing material having a thickness of at least 1/2 inch. If the point N with which you are concerned can contact the head or torso of the child during impact, taking into account compression of the material adjacent to it, then it must be covered with at least the specified thickness of energy- absorbing material.; Your third sketch asks whether energy- absorbing material is require where the shell loops over the tubular steel frame, when the side of the shell is greater than 24 square inches. You are apparently assuming that the area in question is contactable as that term is used in S4.10. In our view the answer to this question depends upon whether the part of the seat in question is actually a 'side' and if so if its rigidity is uniform. If the area in question creates a frontal projection we would not consider it to be a 'side' under S4.10. If it does not, but the side is significantly more rigid in the area of the tubular frame, then we would not consider the exemption in S4.10.3 to apply, since the shell would not be one component. The hazard created would be identical if the tubular frame were exposed, and not covered by the shell.; Finally, you ask for any information on the status of Notice 5 published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786). A final rule based on this notice is in preparation, and we expect that it will be issued in the near future. At the same time, we have placed in the docket a report entitled 'Report of Test on Child Vehicles and Their Energy Absorbing Materials.' This report summarizes recent test work done to investigate test procedures for head restraints and energy absorbing materials for child seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5405OpenHerr Hellfried Sandig Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH & Co KG Eckenerstrasse 2 73730 Esslingen Germany; Herr Hellfried Sandig Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH & Co KG Eckenerstrasse 2 73730 Esslingen Germany; Dear Herr Sandig: This responds to your FAX of June 6, 1994, to Mr. Va Iderstine of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You present a drawing of a rear combination lamp incorporating one stop lamp and two taillamps. You have asked whether it is 'necessary that we must have the ratio 5:1/3:1 between the stop and the tail lamp measurements in this arrangement?' If the lamp is intended for use on narrower vehicles, the answer depends upon the distance between the optical axes of the stop and taillamp functions. SAE Standard J586 FEB84 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.3 of J586 is the source of the ratio: ' w hen a tail lamp is combined with the stop lamp, the stop lamp shall not be less than three times the luminous intensity of the tail lamp at any test point, except that at H-V, H- 5L, H-5R, and 5U-V, the stop lamp shall not be less than five times the luminous intensity of the tail lamp.' However, in a multiple compartment lamp such as yours, if 'the distance between optical axes for one of the functions exceeds the dimensions specified in paragraph 5.1.5.2 i.e., 560 mm the ratio shall be computed for only those compartments or lamps where the tail lamp and stop lamp are optically combined.' Although your combination lamp design combines the two functions, your drawing indicates that they are not optically combined, and the ratio will not apply if the optical axes are more than 560 mm apart. The ratio will apply if the distance between the optical axis of the stop lamp and that of either taillamp is 560 mm or less. SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width is the standard incorporated in Standard No. 108 that applies to lamps used on wider vehicles. Its paragraph 5.1.5.2 establishes the same 5:3 ratio (though not including H-5L in the five times ratio), but does not provide an exception based upon spacing of optical axes. Thus, if your lamp is designed for wider vehicles, the ratio applies regardless of the spacing of the optical axes. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0257OpenMr. 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 Mr. Heath: By letter of October 1, 1970, you asked for the opinion of this offic as to whether the State of California, in specifying approval procedures for seat belts to be sold within the State, must require seat belt manufacturers to produce data showing that they have performed the exact tests specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not instructions for, o descriptions of, manufacturer tests, nor do they specify types and numbers of tests. They are statements of requirements that each vehicle or item of equipment must meet when tested by the Bureau. Manufacturers are required to exercise due care to ensure that their vehicles will meet the standards if tested by the Bureau, and they are at their own discretion in devising an appropriate testing program for that purpose.; If a seat belt manufacturer presents data of tests conducted on webbin taken from rolls, rather than from individual assemblies, and if you are satisfied that such data demonstrates that the webbing would comply with Standard No. 209 when tested according to the procedures of that standard, you may, in our opinion, accept such data for purposes of State approval.; I trust that your question has been adequately answered. If you nee further clarification we will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3882OpenMr. Barry Merten, Senior Product Development Engineer, Fisher-Price Diversified Products, 630 Girard Avenue, Last Aurora, NY 14052-1885; Mr. Barry Merten Senior Product Development Engineer Fisher-Price Diversified Products 630 Girard Avenue Last Aurora NY 14052-1885; Dear Mr. Merten: This responds to your letter to Mr. Oesch of my staff and to Mr Radovich of our Rulemaking division, seeking interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 213, *Child restraint systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that your company plans to produce a new design of child restraint, which incorporates automatic belt retractors for the shoulder belts. These belts are permanently attached to a semi- rigid front restraining shield, which has a buckle built onto the bottom that attaches onto a tongue rigidly fixed within the seating surface. After connecting the buckle on the shield to the tongue, the parent must then push the shield toward the child so that it fits snugly. This automatically takes in the slack in the belts.; You asked two questions about the application of Standard No. 213 t this design of child restraint. The first concerned section S6.1.2.4, which specifies that, prior to testing, the belts on a child restraint shall be adjusted so that there is 1/4 inch of slack. The automatic belt retractors in your design may leave up to 3/4 inch of slack in the belts. You asked if the 1/4 inch slack requirement effectively prohibits the use of belts with an automatic retractor. It does not.; At the time Standard No. 213 took effect, all belts on child restrain systems then on the market were manually adjustable. Hence, they could be adjusted to introduce any amount of slack desired. To ensure that all child restraints would be tested under identical conditions, a provision was added to Standard No. 213 specifying the precise amount of slack which should be present. This specification of test conditions was not intended to establish a requirement that all belt systems on child restraints be manually adjustable, so that the specified amount of slack could be introduced. Instead, it was intended to function as an impartial specification for all belt systems, whether or not they were manually adjustable.; Section S6.1.2.4 sets forth the amount of slack to which all bel systems on child restraints should be adjusted before running the sled test. However, systems which are not manually adjustable may be tested with more slack present, since the greater slack would make the test more severe. No belt system, whether or not manually adjustable, can be tested with less than the specified 1/4 inch of slack, since that would make the test less severe for child restraints equipped with such a belt system. Section S6.1.2.4 is not intended to favor any particular type of belt system. Accordingly, you may test your child restraint with more than 1/4 inch of slack present in the belts.; The second question you asked was whether the language specified i section S5.5.2.(h) could be slightly modified for use on the labels to be affixed to your child restraints. That section requires that the following language appear on the label: 'Snugly adjust the belts provided with this child restraint against your child.' Since the belts on your child restraint will not be manually adjustable, you would like to modify the language to read: 'Snugly adjust the shield provided with this restraint against your child and test that the belts are locked.'; Your proposed modification would ensure that the directions, whic again were written with manually adjustable belts in mind, contained the appropriate modifications for belts with automatic retractors. Your proposed modification does not make any substantive change in the meaning of the directions specified for the label. Since the proposed change is a minor variation intended to clarify the language of the instructions for child restraints where the belts themselves are not manually adjustable, it is permitted.; Should you have any further questions or need further information o this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5055OpenMr. William G. Rosoff Chief, Entry Rulings Branch Department of the Treasury U.S. Customs Service Washington, D.C. 20229; Mr. William G. Rosoff Chief Entry Rulings Branch Department of the Treasury U.S. Customs Service Washington D.C. 20229; "Dear Mr. Rosoff: This responds to your letter of September 18, 1992 forwarding a letter and documentation from Dr. Irina Elovaara. Dr. Elovaara imported a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States around October 9, 1991, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(d), and is requesting permission to keep it here longer than the one year that the regulation permits. You inform us that Customs does not have the authority to grant an extension or exception. Paragraph 591.5(d) permits nonresidents of the United States to temporarily import a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States for a period not to exceed one year, provided that the importer will export it not later than the end of one year after entry. Dr. Elovaara, who holds a visiting fellow appointment at the National Institutes of Health, apparently must export her vehicle not later than October 9, 1992. However, her one-year appointment has been extended for three months, through December 31, 1992, and she wishes to keep her car here until that time. In the meantime, according to Dr. Elovaara, her car has been insured, inspected, and titled in Maryland, as well as passing an emission test. Paragraph 591.5(d) reflects this agency's attempt to accommodate the terms of the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles, to which the United States has subscribed. Under the Convention, a contracting state shall allow nonresidents to import a motor vehicle for their private use on the occasion of a temporary visit without payment of import duties and import taxes and free of import prohibitions and restrictions, and the importation shall be covered by temporary importation papers. However, the period of validity of the temporary importation papers shall not exceed a year from the date of issue. Thus, under the Convention, a 'temporary' importation would appear to be one that does not exceed a year. This is the genesis of our regulatory requirement that a nonresident, upon importing a nonconforming vehicle for private use, declare that the vehicle will be exported not later than a year after its entry, and the reason why the regulation contains no provisions for extension of a period beyond one year. Given the existence of the Convention, we believe you are correct in your conclusion that Customs has no authority to provide an extension or exception, and we have drawn the same conclusion as to the authority of this agency. The question becomes whether, in the absence of timely export of the vehicle, either agency effect to implement the remedies available to it. This is a matter within the general discretionary authority of each agency. The primary concern of this agency, as you know, is motor vehicle safety. Given the fact that Dr. Elovaara's vehicle has already been subjected to local registration, inspection, emissions and insurance laws, we do not believe that there would be any adverse impact upon safety if her vehicle remains in the United States for three additional months, even if that would constitute a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We hope that this resolves Dr. Elovaara's concerns. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2790OpenMr. Moe Pare, Jr., Director of Design, Cars & Concepts, Inc., 12500 E. Grand River, Brighton, MI 48116; Mr. Moe Pare Jr. Director of Design Cars & Concepts Inc. 12500 E. Grand River Brighton MI 48116; Dear Mr. Pare: This responds to your letter of February 16, 1978, asking whether th certification markings required on glazing materials by Safety Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation.; The answer to your question is no. There is nothing in th certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked his glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as these markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer there is no prohibition against covering the markings.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0083OpenMr. Ernest Farmer, Director, Pupil Transportation, Department of Education, 111-C Cordell Hull Building, Nashville, TN 37219; Mr. Ernest Farmer Director Pupil Transportation Department of Education 111-C Cordell Hull Building Nashville TN 37219; Dear Mr. Farmer: Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield concerning the State Board of Education's requirement for school bus warning signal lamps.; The warning signal system as described in your letter does not meet th requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, effective January 1, 1969. A copy of this Standard is enclosed for your reference. A minimum of four red signal lamps is required and they shall be designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July, 1964, a copy of which is also enclosed. Four additional amber lamps are permitted. The red and amber system and the red only system shall be installed in accordance with paragraph S3.1.3.2 and S3.1.3.3, respectively, of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
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.