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: aiam3908OpenMs. Mildred Roger, Ms. Estelle Friedman, Uncanny Products, 5904 Edinger Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92649; Ms. Mildred Roger Ms. Estelle Friedman Uncanny Products 5904 Edinger Avenue Huntington Beach CA 92649; Dear Ms. Roger: This responds to your letter of January 21, 1985, concerning a aftermarket product you manufacture. The product, which you call the 'Uncanny Seat Belt Comfort Control Belt,' consists of a strap which can be fastened around the shoulder and lap webbing of a lap- shoulder safety belt near the buckle. A belt user can then slide the strap along the webbing, thus causing the shoulder portion of the belt to move away from the person's neck and make the belt more comfortable to wear. You asked for the agency to approve, disapprove, or endorse your product so that it can be advertised in certain magazines.; No such agency action is necessary before you advertise your product Further, the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards.; Your particular aftermarket product is not covered by any of our safet belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your products. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 1411-1420 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a copy of which is enclosed.; The agency is concerned that a belted occupant could use your produc to reduce the effectiveness of the upper torso belt by moving the belt so close to the edge of the shoulder that the occupant could rotate out of the upper torso belt in a crash. Likewise, your product could be used to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt, which would also reduce its effectiveness. We urge you to include a warning in your instructions to advise belt users about the proper use of your product.; I am returning the sample of your product that you enclosed with you letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0627OpenMr. T.V. Barlow, Technical Liaison Manager, Wingard Limited, Chichester, Sussex, England; Mr. T.V. Barlow Technical Liaison Manager Wingard Limited Chichester Sussex England; Dear Mr. Barlow: This is in reply to your letter of February 10, 1972, regardin interpretation of certain parts of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.; In regard to your question on performance of retractors, the standar specifies that an emergency- locking retractor or a non-locking retractor attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension.' This requirement applies to all emergency-locking retractors whether attached to the pelvic or upper torso restraint and only to those non-locking retractors that are attached to the upper torso restraint.; In regard to the 45,000 additional cycles, one cycle consists o extending the webbing from 50 to 100 percent extension and return to 50 percent.; Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of furthe assistance.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5425OpenMs. Doris Hull Owner Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc. Route 2, Box 2291 Sikeston, MO 63801; Ms. Doris Hull Owner Sikeston Trailer Sales Inc. Route 2 Box 2291 Sikeston MO 63801; Dear Ms. Hull: This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, addresse to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, whom you identified as Chief Counsel. For your future information, Mr. Hellmuth is Chief of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance of this agency. I am the Acting Chief Counsel. Your letter referred to a May 13, 1994 telephone conversation that you and Mr. David McCormick had with Walter Myers of my staff concerning new and used tires on trailers. You asked for confirmation of your understanding of what was said during that conversation, as follows: (a) That as a trailer manufacturer you can sell to a dealer new trailers that are stacked one on top of the other, with new tires on the bottom trailer but no tires or wheels on the stacked trailers, (b) That you can sell used tires and rims but not installed on the new trailers, and (c) That you can separately sell used tires and rims to the purchaser of a trailer, then install them on the new trailer if the purchaser so requests. FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed) provides that vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements either of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Other Than Passenger Cars. Both those standards specify requirements for new tires. As an exception to those requirements, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No.120 provides that: A truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of the purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, . . . Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol (emphasis added). With that background in mind, your understanding (a) above is correct. You stated to Mr. Myers that it is common practice in the industry to stack completed trailers one on top of another for shipment, with the bottom trailer being equipped with new tires. This office stated in a letter to Mr. Steve Thomas dated April 14, 1993 (copy enclosed), that new trailers may be sold without tires and wheels. Accordingly, it is permissible to ship trailers without tires and wheels, with new tires on the bottom trailer that is carrying the others. Your understanding (b) is also correct, but with a caveat. No provision of Federal law or regulation prohibits you from separately selling used tires and wheels that you own to anyone you want, including dealers. However, the practice you describe implies that the dealer will be installing the used tires you've provided on the new trailers, which would amount to a violation of Standard No. 120. The standard specifically provides that used or retreaded tires may be installed on new vehicles only at the place of manufacture, the dealer is not permitted to install used tires on new trailers, whether or not owned and requested by the purchaser. Further, a manufacturer that includes used tires with new vehicles, even though not installed on the new vehicle, could be considered to be contributing to a potential violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards by the dealer. With respect to understanding (c), S5.1.3, as noted above, requires that used or retreaded tires installed on a new vehicle be owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle. The standard, however, does not specify any length of time that the used or retreaded tires must be owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser, nor does the standard specify the source(s) from which the purchaser must have acquired the used or retreaded tires. Therefore, there is no prohibition against the purchaser of a trailer purchasing used or retreaded tires from a trailer manufacturer or from any other source, then requesting the manufacturer to install them on the new trailer. However, we have the following observations about the practice. The used/retreaded tire exception in S5.1.3 was included in the standard to accommodate bus and truck fleets who either purchase or lease tires on a mileage contract basis or who maintain tire banks. A mileage contract purchaser or lessor is one who purchases or leases tires on a per-mile basis. A tire bank is composed of serviceable tires that have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. Mileage contract purchases and tire banks are standard practices in the transportation industry and the agency assumed that those purchasers would select only safe, serviceable tires from their inventories for installation on their new vehicles. The agency also assumed that those purchasers would have owned and used those tires for some length of time prior to their being selected for installation on new vehicles. Thus, the practice of a new vehicle purchaser purchasing used tires from a trailer manufacturer and then asking the manufacturer to install them on the new vehicle was not envisioned by this agency when issuing Standard No. 120. None of the above would relieve trailer manufacturers from their responsibility to attach the required labels with the recommended tire and rim sizes and inflation pressures in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam0277OpenMr. Donald Mallett, Jeep Corporation, 940 North Cove Boulevard, P.O. Box 903, Toledo, OH 43601; Mr. Donald Mallett Jeep Corporation 940 North Cove Boulevard P.O. Box 903 Toledo OH 43601; Dear Mr. Mallett: On June 16, 1971, you and Mr. William Fleming of American Motors me with representatives of NHTSA and pointed out that the March 4, 1971, revisions of Standard No. 210 (36 F.R. 4291) had created a situation where seat belt anchorages for side-facing seats of multipurpose passenger vehicles would have to meet strength requirements only for the six-month period from July 1, 1971, to January 1, 1972. This occurred because the March 4 notice, which basically extended the existing standard for passenger cars to other types of vehicles as of July 1, 1972, did not have the exemption for side-facing seat belt anchorages that is contained in the revised standard that goes into effect on January 1, 1972.; The failure to exempt side-facing seats from the anchorage tes requirements for the six-month period ending January 1, 1972, was inadvertent. A *Federal Register* notice will be issued shortly amending Standard No. 210 to correct this discrepancy. I am sending you this letter, which will be placed in the public files, in advance of the notice as an extraordinary procedure in light of the time period involved, to confirm that your vehicles need not meet the strength requirements for seat belt anchorages for side-facing seats apparently contained in Standard No. 210.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5075OpenUnder Secretary Ministry of Commerce and Industry P. O. Box No. 2944 KUWAIT; Under Secretary Ministry of Commerce and Industry P. O. Box No. 2944 KUWAIT; "Dear Mr. Under Secretary: This responds to your letter concernin United States tire regulations. You stated that some companies have been reported to be dumping defective and rejected tires in your country. In response to that situation, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a decree requiring that all imported tires must be new, must comply with international standards, and must be accompanied by a quality certificate issued by an independent, officially recognized authority which has the capability of testing and proving the quality of the tires in accordance with the standards. You stated that you have been unable to obtain such a certificate from the United States, but have received one from a company called Societe Generale de Surveillance, which issues a certificate for each shipment separately and does only visual tests and not laboratory testing. You stated that you have studied this agency's tire standards and posed a series of questions to us which I will endeavor to answer below. By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Standard No. 109 (49 CFR Part 571.109), and all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements. The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is considerably different in the United States than in other countries. For example, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. The Safety Act, on the other hand, establishes a 'self-certification' process for tires sold in the United States. Under this process, the tire manufacturer, not a governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with applicable safety standards. The Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base its certification on a specified number of tests. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of the individual tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with Federal tire safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all requirements of the safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters 'DOT' onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing or approval of tires. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires 'off the shelf' from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standards, the tire manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge. With the above background in mind, I now turn to your specific questions: 1. Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the 'DOT' mark? Answer: Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles. The 'DOT' symbol molded onto at least one side of the tire is the manufacturer's certification that that tire complies with all applicable safety standards. 2. What are the bases for granting the right to use the 'DOT' mark by tire manufacturers? Answer: The use of the 'DOT' symbol on tires is a requirement imposed on tire manufacturers and not a right which is granted. 3. Is the 'DOT' symbol required for tires intended both for domestic consumption and for export? Answer: NHTSA's safety standards do not apply to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are intended solely for export. Therefore, the 'DOT' symbol is required only for tires intended for use in the United States. 4. Is there a validity time for the use of the 'DOT' symbol? Answer: No. The symbol constitutes the manufacturer's certification that, at the time a new tire is manufactured, that tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. 5. What is the relationship between your administration and the Department of Transportation concerning the implementation of the 'DOT' symbol? Answer: NHTSA is a subordinate agency of the United States Department of Transportation. 6. What are the legal responsibilities of manufacturers by using the 'DOT' symbol? Answer: As indicated above, by placing the 'DOT' symbol on a tire the manufacturer certifies that, under the provisions of the Safety Act, the tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. 7. What are the responsibilities of manufacturers in case of violations of the 'DOT' symbol's role? Answer: If a tire is determined not to comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge. In addition, violations of Safety Act provisions may result in civil fines. I hope that the information in this letter is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, however, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0298OpenMr. J.T. Hite, III, President, Yarbrough Manufacturing Company, Inc., P.O. Box 848, 921 Mayfield Road, Arlington, TX 76010; Mr. J.T. Hite III President Yarbrough Manufacturing Company Inc. P.O. Box 848 921 Mayfield Road Arlington TX 76010; Dear Mr. Hite: This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1971 concerning Tir Identification and Record Keeping regulations. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574).; The regulation does not provide for exemptions or waivers, however, yo will note that under S 574.10 of the regulation vehicle manufacturers are required to keep records of tires on or in the vehicle when shipped to the dealer. Under the conditions you describe in your letter S 574.9(b) appears to be the relevant section and requires that the vehicle dealer record the name, address, etc. of the purchaser and forward this information to the tire manufacturer.; I hope this letter is responsive to the question you raise. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5560OpenMr. Mayo D. Tubbs Visionary Lighting Systems 1409 Sweetgum Circle Keller, TX 76248; Mr. Mayo D. Tubbs Visionary Lighting Systems 1409 Sweetgum Circle Keller TX 76248; Dear Mr. Tubbs: Thank you for providing a FAX copy of your letter o April 27, 1995, to Philip Recht. As Taylor Vinson explained to you when you phoned, the agency had no record of receiving your original letter. Our letter of April 13, 1995, to you was based upon your representation that the strip lights in your system would be 'Aviation Green'. We advised you that use of this color has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory side lighting equipment, i.e., amber front side markers, red rear side markers, and red and white conspicuity striping or red reflectors. You have asked whether our response would be different if the strip lamps were red or amber in color, as shown in the drawings of a van trailer in your Attachment A. In this scheme, amber lamps would be located on the side of the trailer, and red lamps on the rear. Because these colors are associated with caution, we do not believe that they would impair the effectiveness of any of a trailer's required lighting equipment. You expressed your understanding that, if the three rear identification lamps are installed at the top of a trailer, the clearance lamps can be mounted at the bottom and vice versa, as reflected in the drawings shown in your Attachment C. This is not exactly correct. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires identification lamps, without exception, to be mounted 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle.' While clearance lamps also are required to be 'as near the top as practicable' (Table II), when the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle the rear clearance lamps need not be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle (paragraph S5.3.1.4). This configuration is reflected in the drawing on Attachment C titled 'Identification Lights on Top'. The drawing 'Identification Lights on Bottom' does not depict a location for identification lamps that conforms to Table II. Because clearance lamps are intended to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, the exception originated to accommodate trailer designs in which the widest part of the trailer was the fenders. In the van configuration shown on Attachment C, it would be practicable for both identification and clearance lamps to be mounted at the top of the trailer, and that is the location preferred by this agency for clearance lamps, notwithstanding S5.3.1.4. If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1870OpenMr. David A. Tenquist, Marketing Department, Novus, Inc., 5301 B Edina Industrial Blvd., Minneapolis, MN 55435; Mr. David A. Tenquist Marketing Department Novus Inc. 5301 B Edina Industrial Blvd. Minneapolis MN 55435; Dear Mr. Tenquist: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1975, inquiring as t whether any safety regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration applies to the 'Novus Windshield Repair Kit,' manufactured by your firm.; An advertising brochure for the product states that the material use in the process 'is a special waterproof epoxy that not only fills the fissure in the glass but also bonds the crack surfaces to prevent formation or extension of radial cracks.'; There is no safety regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration, nor any other Federal law or regulation, which prohibits the use of such a material or process in the repair of windshields which have previously been installed in vehicles and damaged in use. Using such a material or process in a new windshield which may require repair as the result of damage sustained in shipment could cause the windshield to fail to meet the performance requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR S 571.205) and we would therefore discourage use of the Novus kit on new windshields.; Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of furthe assistance.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0762OpenMr. Walker Sandbach, Executive Director, Consumers Union, 256 Washington Street, Mount Vernon, NY 10550; Mr. Walker Sandbach Executive Director Consumers Union 256 Washington Street Mount Vernon NY 10550; Dear Mr. Sandbach: This is in response to your letter of June 28, 1972, forwarding to us report to be published in the August issue of *Consumer Reports*, which raises numerous issues concerning child restraints and the efficacy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Seating Systems.' You contend, based on testing you performed, that the static performance tests of the standard are meaningless, and that dynamic tests should be adopted.; We agree that a dynamic test should be included in the standard, and w discuss below our efforts and intentions in this regard. We also believe, however, that devices which conform to Standard No. 213 provide significant impact protection for children which is not available otherwise, and that the present standard has served a useful purpose in the development of effective child restraints and the removal from the marketplace of marginal products. We have pursued a vigorous enforcement policy with respect to the standard which has discovered and corrected numerous cases of noncompliance.; The 1,000-pound static test imposed by Standard No.213 was determine by the NHTSA to be an adequate first step in the development of standards for child seating systems. This determination was based, in part, on the state of the art of the development of these devices, and the financial resources of the affected industry. The limitations of the static test have been known for some time, and in the NHTSA *Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards*, published in October 1971, the NHTSA made clear its intention to develop a dynamic test to measure the performance of all child restraint devices.; We believe the most effective way to utilize a dynamic test is t couple it with realistic injury criteria that reflect the ability of children to withstand crash impacts. This is the approach taken for adults by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Although we have developed adult injury criteria as part of our work on that standard, further work must be done to correlate these criteria with the protection needed for children.; Rather than delay dynamic testing until this work is completed however, the NHTSA plans to propose interim dynamic tests using other performance criteria which are presently being developed through research at the University of Michigan. We are also sponsoring other research on the problem of the development of realistic child dummies. Another problem in the development of a dynamic test for child seating systems, or any other performance requirements for them, is that the performance of the child seat is in large measure dependent upon the design and construction of the vehicle in which it is placed. Because manufacturers can market these devices economically only if they are suitable for large numbers of vehicles, an endless number of variables occur, with a resultant difficulty in prescribing reasonable 'worst case' test conditions.; We are presently working to provide answers to these questions, and ar hopeful that the research projects presently under way will provide data in the near future on which we can proceed. You mention that you will be submitting to us a petition for rulemaking regarding the standard. We request that you also submit to us any data which might assist us in solving these problems.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam5130OpenMr. Dale E. Dawkins Director Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs Chrysler Corporation CIMS 415-03-17 1200 Chrysler Drive Highland Park MI 48288-0857; Mr. Dale E. Dawkins Director Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs Chrysler Corporation CIMS 415-03-17 1200 Chrysler Drive Highland Park MI 48288-0857; "Dear Mr. Dawkins: This responds to your letter of December 16, 1992 to the Administrator informing the agency about the intent of Chrysler Corporation to manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV) under NHTSA Temporary Exemption 92-1. According to your letter, these vehicles are 'almost identical' to the TEVans for which the agency granted the temporary exemption, except that they will utilize an AC electrical motor, while the ones which were the subject of the exemption petition will be powered by a DC electrical motor. You seek no broader exemption as the combined volumes of CCEVs and TEVans 'will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted.' You have submitted this information to us so that NHTSA will have a clear understanding of the content of your electric vehicle development program and the extent of the exemptions under which these vehicles will be manufactured. It appears that you would like confirmation from NHTSA that the CCEV vehicles are covered by Temporary Exemption 92-1. In order for the agency to provide this confirmation, it must determine that CCEV and TEVans are essentially the same vehicle and that none of the minor differences between the vehicles affects the findings made by the agency in issuing the TEVan exemption. In granting Chrysler's exemption petition covering three standards, the Administrator first found that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle. We do not believe that the change in electrical propulsion from DC to AC affects this finding. The Administrator next found that an exemption from the three standards would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle. You state that ' b ased on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety.' While you may have used the word 'significant' in an excess of caution, it implies that there are differences between CCEV and TEVan and that there is a difference in overall vehicle safety between the CCEV and TEVan, although not an important one from Chrysler's viewpoint. We would appreciate your identification of the differences between the vehicles, and of the differences, if any, in the safety between the CCEVs and TEVans that may have led to Chrysler's engineering conclusion. With this information, we shall be better able to evaluate whether the two vehicles are essentially the same and whether there is any undue degradation in safety that might render it inappropriate to consider the CCEVs covered by the TEVan exemption. We appreciate your calling our attention to this matter. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.