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: aiam0254OpenMr. Donald O'Neill, Technical Editor, Automotive Engineering, Two Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10001; Mr. Donald O'Neill Technical Editor Automotive Engineering Two Pennsylvania Plaza New York New York 10001; Dear Mr. O'Neill: Thank you for your letter of August 17, 1970, concerning Mr. George R Smith's comments on the energy- absorbing steering system in response to my interview in your August issue.; I did not mean to imply that energy-absorbing steering systems were no installed by some manufacturers, such a General Motors, prior to the effective date of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203 - Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System.; Mr. Smith is correct in noting that Standard No. 203 does not requir collapsible steering columns. It was intentionally written in performance terms rather than as a design specification. Most manufacturers chose the collapsible steering column to meet the standard, hence the common use of the term 'collapsible column' to refer to our requirements. However, it should be noted that the standard is also being complied with by steering control systems employing other methods of energy-absorption including energy-absorbing rims and a collapsible bellows located forward of the steering wheel hub.; Regarding your request for a copy of the National Highway Safety Burea 'Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards,' This plan is a working document and represents the presently scheduled rulemaking actions to be issued by our Motor Vehicle Programs activity during the period of 1970-1972. I am pleased to enclose a copy as you requested.; I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of my interview remark and I enjoy reading Mr. Smith's comments.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Director |
|
ID: aiam2269OpenHonorable Vance Hartke, Chairman, Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510; Honorable Vance Hartke Chairman Surface Transportation Subcommittee Committee on Commerce United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510; Dear Senator Hartke: This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1976, enclosing letter from Mr. Dennis Oser concerning the effective date of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.*; Standard No. 119 became effective March 1, 1975, and applies t non-passenger-car tires manufactured on and after that date. From his reference to 'April 1, 1976', Mr. Oser appears to be concerned with the effective dates of 49 CFR 393.75, a regulation issued by the FEderal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS). That regulation addresses the type of tires with which motor vehicles in use in interstate commerce must be equipped. Accordingly, I have forwarded your letter to the BMCS for further reply.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam5056OpenMr. Preston Golder Road Reflectors P.O. Box 493 Farmingville, N.Y. 11738; Mr. Preston Golder Road Reflectors P.O. Box 493 Farmingville N.Y. 11738; Dear Mr. Golder: This responds to your letter of September 14, 1992 asking about the legality under Federal law of your 'Auto Neon System', an accessory which reflects a glow from under the vehicle. We answered an inquiry from Mr. Allan Schwartz about a similar device, in a letter dated April 21, 1992. I enclose a copy of our response to Mr. Schwartz for your information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam2793OpenMr. Tokio Iinuma, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 1606, 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Tokio Iinuma Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This responds to Nissan Motor Company's March 9, 1978, request fo confirmation that section 581.5(c)(9) of Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, does not prohibit deformation of 'hood ledge' sheet metal which is spot welded to the reinforced panel that transfers bumper impact forces from the bumper shock absorber unit to the vehicle frame.; As I understand the function and location of the 'hood ledge' shee metal, it is not a component of the vehicle that is regulated by Part 581. It is not an exterior surface of the vehicle or any of the other components or aspects of the vehicle regulated by paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8). It is also not a 'fastener or joint' regulated by paragraph (c)(9). With this understanding, the deformation you describe would not be prohibited by any portion of Part 581.; In a telephone conversation with Mr. Herlihy of this office, you aske if a prior interpretation to Nissan of the limitation on permissible 'dent' had been in error. Section 581.5(c)(11)(ii) states that dent is measured from a reference line 'connecting the bumper contours adjoining any such contact area'. Our December 1, 1977, interpretation to Nissan agreed that the line extends from any two points of contact of the impact ridge following impact, as opposed to contact just preceding impact. You noted a preamble discussion of May 12, 1977, (42 FR at 24058) that suggests a reference line be established across the area of impact prior to impact.; The preamble language you cited was only our suggestion of how manufacturer might establish a reference line for measurement purposes, rather than the 'definitional' line specified in the standard that establishes the dimensions of the dent. I would note that establishing this line prior to impact could greatly reduce the effective area which would qualify for treatment as a dent. For example, in the case of a convex surface the initial point of contact could be limited to the point of the impact ridge.; I would like to make another clarification of our December discussio on this point. While we agreed that the line designated 'D' would be the line specified by the standard, it appears that additional area (lying along the lower slope of the impact ridge) might have contacted the impact ridge during impact. The agency would consider this area to qualify as a portion of the dent area. It is because of such cases, where dynamic events affect the measurement, that the agency suggested the use of paint or another surface contact marking mechanism to measure areas of contact.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3881OpenMr. Neal McCormick, Colorado Department of Education, 303 West Colfax Avenue, Denver, Co 80204; Mr. Neal McCormick Colorado Department of Education 303 West Colfax Avenue Denver Co 80204; Dear Mr. McCormick: This responds to your November 21, 1984 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to school buses. Our answers follow your specific questions which we have restated below.; 1. Do the Federal school bus standards in fact preclude a schoo district from transporting pupils in vehicles not meeting all school bus standards?; To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets o regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect a school district's choice of buses. The first of these are the motor vehicle safety standards to which you refer in your letter. These safety standards were issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563, 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) and apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. If a school district plans to buy a *new* bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. The Federal sanctions are directed against the dealer or manufacturer who sells a new noncomplying bus to a school for school use. Strictly speaking, a school district is not prohibited by our school bus safety standards from operating a noncomplying school bus.; There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if Colorado ha adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564, 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked 'School Bus.' Therefore, although the Vehicle Safety Act would not prevent a school district from operating a noncomplying school bus, HSPS 17 might affect your school districts if Colorado has adopted it and if Colorado accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. I have enclosed a copy of HSPS 17 that was photocopied from volume 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1204.4, as requested by your associate, Mr. Joseph Marchese.; If Colorado chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.; Having said this, however, I would like to restate the importance tha our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. Such a bus has safety features such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. These are features that school districts should consider when deciding to purchase their school vehicles.; 2. May a state set out definitions of vehicles (for transportation o pupils) which do not meet all applicable school bus standards? If not, what penalties may be applied?; Our Federal motor vehicle safety regulations define a bus as a moto vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and further define a school bus as a bus that is sold for the purposes of carrying students to and from school or related events. The decision of a State not to adopt the Federal classification has no affect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to that vehicle. The Federal school bus safety standards would apply to vehicles that meet the Federal definition of a school bus, regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under state regulations. Of course, the Federal standards apply only to those vehicles that were manufactured after the effective date of the standards, April 1, 1977.; Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act states generally that no Stat shall have in effect any State standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. State standards that are not identical are preempted by the Safety Act unless they impose a higher level of safety and are applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use.; The preemptive effect of section 103(d) is not altered by the fact tha a vehicle classified as a school bus under the Safety Act is classified as some other type of motor vehicle under State law. A State decision to adopt all or none of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to a type of motor vehicle has no effect on the necessity under the Safety Act of manufacturing such a motor vehicle in accordance with the Federal standards.; 3. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle not meeting al applicable school bus safety standards and uses it for transporting pupils, what penalties may be applied? Would such penalties apply if the vehicle is used for 'activity' transportation only?; As we explained above, the school district that purchases and uses noncomplying school bus would not be subject to Federal sanctions under the Vehicle Safety Act. It is only illegal for a manufacturer or dealer to sell such a vehicle to a school knowing that the school will use it to transport students. Any person selling new vehicles for use in school transportation which fail to comply with all applicable safety standards is violating the Vehicle Safety Act and is subject to a maximum penalty of $1,000 per violation. Further, in regard to the second part of this question, the answer is yes. The penalties would apply to a person selling a new bus to a school for school related activity trips if that bus is not certified to the Federal safety standards.; You should note that although a school district would not be subject t Federal sanctions under the Safety Act for buying and using a noncomplying bus, using such a vehicle as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.; 4. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle meeting al applicable school bus standards and modifies such a vehicle, is there a penalty? For example, replacement of 222 seating with seats not in compliance with the 222 standards.; The answer is no. Nothing in the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits an owner such as a school, from modifying its own vehicles. However, the Act does prohibit dealers, manufacturers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The school can replace the seats of the original school bus with seats that do not comply with FMVSS No. 222 if it so desires. As we pointed out above, the school could be subject to increased liability in case of an accident. We suggest that you discuss this matter with your attorney or insurance agency.; 5. Is NHTSA at present considering any amendments to the existin standards for school buses? Also, are any additional standards likely to be promulgated with the next year?; Our agency has recently received a petition for rulemaking requestin that FMVSS No. 222 be amended to set certain specifications for seat belt performance on large school buses if seat belts are voluntarily installed on these vehicles. The decision to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking will be made by NHTSA in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.; 6. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has set out severa recommendations for 'activity' buses. Does NHTSA concur in these recommendations? (These refer to certification/training of mechanics, etc.); Enclosed is a copy of a November 2, 1984 letter from NHTSA' administrator, Diane K. Steed, to Chairman Burnett of the National Transportation Safety Board, which comments on several recommendations NTSB made regarding school bus repairs, certification of mechanics, instruction on emergency equipment use, et cetera. I believe this letter will discuss your concerns thoroughly.; If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact m office.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3028OpenMr. Don M. Carnahan, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Old Capitol Building, Olympia, WA 98504; Mr. Don M. Carnahan Superintendent of Public Instruction Old Capitol Building Olympia WA 98504; Dear Mr. Carnahan: This responds to your May 10, 1979, letter asking about modification of buses to reduce seating capacity so that they no longer must comply with school bus safety standards.; First, let me clarify several points. In applying motor vehicle safet standards, we define a 'school bus' as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define 'bus' as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The phrase 'more than 10 persons' includes the driver. Accordingly, any vehicle that transports 11 people is a bus.; Your first problem appears to involve how to determine whether vehicle is designed to carry more than 10 persons. You indicate, for example, that some manufacturers have attached labels to their vehicles stating that they are designed to transport 15 passengers. However, some of the vehicles only have 8 or 9 seats. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration measures vehicle capacity by the number of designated seating positions. Therefore, a vehicle that has 8 designated seating positions is not a bus. Such a vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If you are unsure of the vehicle type, refer to the vehicle certification label located on the door pillar post or on the inside of the door. That label lists the vehicle type as established by its manufacturer.; Any vehicle that is sent from its manufacturer and certified i compliance with multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) standards may be used to transport school children. These vehicles, since they are not buses, need not comply with the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, any vehicle that is certified as a bus, but not a school bus, should not be used to transport school children.; You ask whether a bus can be modified by removing seats so that i would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would require it to comply with the school bus safety standards. In theory such a modification is permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, *Certification*, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type (from bus to MPV), it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to the new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses. However, it is conceivable that the initial vehicle manufacturer might be able to assure the dealer that the vehicle was built in compliance with all necessary standards. In such a case, the dealer could attach a label, and the vehicle would be properly certified.; If a school modifies its own vehicles, it need not attach a label Also, it need not assure that the vehicles comply with any standards. In the event of an accident, however, a school could incur substantial liability if it were operating a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards.; In your final question you ask what agency enforces the standard against dealers and manufacturers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration enforces all of the motor vehicle safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1015OpenMr. Gerhard Kutschera, Semperit of America, Inc., 156 Ludlow Avenue, Northvale, New Jersey 07647; Mr. Gerhard Kutschera Semperit of America Inc. 156 Ludlow Avenue Northvale New Jersey 07647; Dear Mr. Kutschera: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1973, inquiring whethe size designations '225/70SR14 replaces G70SR14', and '215/70SR15 replaces F70SR15' etc., may be used under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 provides for the labeling of 'on size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designation may be used.' The NHTSA has taken the position that this requirement does not prohibit the labeling of replacement sizes when the replaced size is in fact being superseded by the replacement size.; Because your proposed label contains both a metric and an inch siz designation, however, it is not clear whether these size designations are intended as 'equivalent' or 'replacement' sizes. If you intend the former size to supersede the later, your use of 'replaces' between the two size designation is consistent with Standard No. 109, If your intention is to label equivalent size designation, however, the use of 'replaces' is inappropriate. One way in which equivalency may be appropriately shown is to place the inch size designation if a parenthesis () immediately following the metric size designation.; One last point is that the size designation listed in the Appendix o Standard No. 109 for 70 Series radial ply tires differ from those specified in your letter. Table I-G, which lists this tire type, specifies size designations in which the second letter is and 'R'. Thus, the size designations which you submit should have read GR70SR14 and FR70SR15. Other size designations of this tire type should be identified accordingly.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4217OpenJohn Fleder, Esq., Director, Office of Consumer Litigation, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 386, Washington, D.C. 20044; John Fleder Esq. Director Office of Consumer Litigation Department of Justice P.O. Box 386 Washington D.C. 20044; Dear Mr. Fleder: This is in response to the request from Don O. Burley of your offic for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's interpretation of the Federal Odometer Disclosure Regulation, 49 C.F.R. Part 580. Specifically, Mr. Burley questioned the identity of the parties required to retain odometer disclosure statements under 49 C.F.R. S 580.7.; In 1977, the Agency decided that a regulation requiring the dealer o distributor to retain the statements issued to him (transferee odometer statements) and the statements he issued (transferor odometer statements) would enhance the value of odometer disclosure statements as investigatory tools. Therefore, the Agency proposed the following regulation:; >>>Each dealer or distributor of a motor vehicle shall retain for fou years each odometer mileage statement which he receives. He shall also retain for four years a photostat, carbon, or other facsimile copy of each odometer mileage statement which he issues. . . .<<<; 42 Fed. Reg. 58547 (1977). General Motors responded to this notice by questioning the regulation' application to manufacturers. Section 402 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the 'Act'), 15 U.S.C. S 1982, defines 'dealer' as 'any person who has sold 5 or more motor vehicles in the past 12 months to purchasers who in good faith purchase such vehicles for purposes other than resale.' In addition, the Act defines 'distributor' as 'any person who has sold 5 or more vehicles in the past 12 months for resale.' Therefore, under the regulation as proposed, a manufacturer was defined as a distributor and would have been required to retain odometer disclosure statements. However, the Agency noted that since 49 C.F.R. S 580.5 specifically exempts manufacturers who sell vehicles to dealers from the requirements of executing odometer disclosure statements, manufacturers would not be required to retain any statements. 43 Fed. Reg. 18922 (1977) To clarify these apparently contradictory provisions, the modifying phrase 'who is required by this Part to execute an odometer disclosure statement' was added to the retention requirements following the words 'motor vehicle.' It was not the intent of the Agency by the insertion of this phrase to relieve dealers and distributors from the requirement of retaining odometer statements which they receive from a transferee.; Insurance companies and financial institutions also questioned th scope of the proposed regulation. The Agency noted that insurance companies and financial institutions do not fall within any of the exemptions set forth in 49 C.F.R. S 580.5 and that they must execute and retain odometer disclosure statements unless the transfers involve vehicles that are so badly damaged that they cannot be returned to the road. 43 Fed. Reg. 10922 (1978). The intent of this interpretation was to notify such institutions that they must retain all transferor odometer statements which they execute as well as all transferee odometer statements. I have enclosed a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the applicable comments and the final rule. Since the NPRM, we have not received any other correspondence concerning the retention requirement.; It is the Agency's interpretation that unless a dealer or distributo is exempt under 49 C.F.R. S580.5 from executing an odometer statement or unless he is transferring vehicles that are so badly damaged that they cannot be returned to the road, the dealer or distributor must retain both the statements issued to him and the statements he issued. The retention requirement affords the Government and aggrieved parties with the necessary documentation to prove a violation of the Act and to pinpoint exactly where the violation occurred.; If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3478OpenMr. Jack DiMaio, Semperit of America, Inc., 156 Ludlow Avenue, Northvale, NJ 07647; Mr. Jack DiMaio Semperit of America Inc. 156 Ludlow Avenue Northvale NJ 07647; Dear Mr. DiMaio: This is in response to your telephone inquiry of October 13, 1981 asking whether tire tread labels required under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards must continue to be affixed to tires once applicable UTQG grades are added to sidewall molds for the tires. The UTQG regulation contemplates that tire grading information will be made available to consumers simultaneously through a variety of means, including tread labels (49 CFR S 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)), sidewall molding (49 CFR S 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)), and leaflets available at the point of sale (49 CFR S 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). While the regulation was recently amended to permit tire grades to be molded on the tire sidewall at any time up to six months after introduction of a new tire line (46 FR 41514, August 17, 1981), this change in no way affected the obligation imposed by S 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) that UTQG tread labels be affixed to all replacement tires to which the regulation applies. Thus, once the sidewall molding requirement takes effect for a line of tires, the regulation requires that UTQG information be displayed on the tires both by means of sidewall molding and by labels attached to the tread surface.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1445OpenMr. Bruce J. Motyka, 2030 Laura Lane, Des Plaines, IL 60018; Mr. Bruce J. Motyka 2030 Laura Lane Des Plaines IL 60018; Dear Mr. Motyka: This is in reply to your letter of March 11, 1974, asking fo suggestions regarding problems you have experienced with your pickup truck-camper unit.; It appears from your letter that no violations of Federal requirement have occurred. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 and its companion Consumer Information requirement (49 CFR S 575.103) about which we wrote to you through Senator Percy's office did not become effective until January 1, 1973, well after the time you bought your vehicle. Moreover, it is not correct to characterize the dealer who sold you the unit as a 'final-stage manufacturer.' Under NHTSA requirements a pickup truck is a completed vehicle, and a person who installs a slide-in camper into the cargo area of a truck does not become a manufacturer. While this is not the case with chassis-mount campers, it is with respect to slide-in campers.; I suggest that if you wish to proceed further you consult an attorney who would be able to best assess your chances of success in civil litigation. The dealer's employee who told you that the 'GVW plate meant nothing' was mistaken. The weight ratings provided on the plate represent the manufacturer's representation of the maximum safe weight of a fully loaded vehicle.; You might wish to examine the labels attached, pursuant to Standard No 126 and 49 CFR S 575.103, to later models of both the pickup truck and camper you purchased. It is possible that those models and the ones you purchased are not substantially different. If that is the case the information on the labels can provide an indication of the extent that the weight ratings were exceeded by installation of the camper unit in question.; While I regret we cannot be of further assistance I wish you success i your efforts to solve this problem.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, 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.