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: aiam4287OpenMr. Hiromi Hori, Manager, Certification Regulations Section, Technical Department, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd., 80 Itado,, Isehara- City, Kanagawa Pref. 259-11, Japan; Mr. Hiromi Hori Manager Certification Regulations Section Technical Department Ichikoh Industries Ltd. 80 Itado Isehara- City Kanagawa Pref. 259-11 Japan; Dear Mr. Hori: This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1987, with reference t a lamp that is used as both an identification lamp, and as a clearance lamp. Currently the lamp projects its amber beam forward as much of the remainder of the lens is painted black. You have asked if it is permissible to remove the black paint, as a result of which the lamp will emit light in other directions.; Standard No. 108 does not prohibit removal of the black paint. Th lamp, of course, must meet the photometric requirements for a clearance lamp, or for an identification lamp if it is used as part of the three lamp array. We call your attention to paragraph 3.4 of SAE Standard J592e, July 1972, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. It states that 'The H-V axis of a clearance or identification lamp shall be taken as parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' The lamp depicted in your sketch appears to conflict with this requirement. Further, if the lamp is mounted as shown in the sketch, it would appear that no light will be visible, except in that half of the pattern on the lens side of the lamp base.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3542OpenMr. P. J. Lawson, Senior Test Engineer, British Standards Institution, Test House, Maylands Avenue, Hemel Hempstead, Herts HP2 4SQ, England; Mr. P. J. Lawson Senior Test Engineer British Standards Institution Test House Maylands Avenue Hemel Hempstead Herts HP2 4SQ England; Dear Mr. Lawson: This responds to your letter of December 22, 1981, concerning Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, and its relationship to non-Federal standards.; FMVSS No. 218 is the helmet standard in the United States to whic manufacturers must certify compliance for all newly manufactured helmets to which the standard is applicable. Private standards, such as ANSI or Snell, are not legally enforceable. However, it is possible in cases of product liability that such private standards could be used as evidence in civil suits that a particular manufacturer was not designing its helmets to the state of the art.; Various states may also have requirements concerning motorcycl helmets. However, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that '(w)henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard....' Thus, a non-identical State safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as FMVSS No. 218 would be preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and therefore would be unenforceable.; The answers to your more specific questions are as follows. a) How are the two standards linked for compliance testing now tha their technical requirements are different?; As indicated above, there is no connection between FMVSS No. 218 an private standards.b) What procedure should helmet manufacturers follow in order to gain compliance?; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not grant prio approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify compliance of each motor vehicle and item of equipment with all applicable FMVSS's. The Act requires that manufacturers exercise 'due care' to ensure that their products conform to each applicable standard (section 108(b)(1)).; A manufacturer is not required to run the actual tests specified by safety standard. Instead, a manufacturer must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that its products, if tested according to the requirements of a standard, would meet those requirements. Since FMVSS No. 218 includes a number of specific test requirements, it is likely that a manufacturer would find it necessary to do some testing in order to ensure that a helmet complied with the standard. For enforcement purposes, the agency would test a helmet according to the specific test requirements of FMVSS No. 218.; c) Who are the recognized Test Houses in the U.S. and elsewhere? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not maintain list of qualified test laboratories. There may be many test laboratories, both here and abroad, who are qualified to do the testing necessary to ensure that a helmet meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 218. Southwest Research Institute and Dayton T. Brown, Inc., have been our compliance test contractors. Their addresses are:; >>>Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, T 78284; Dayton T. Brown, Inc., Church Street, Bohemia, Long Island, NY 11716<<< d) What part does the American Association of Motor Vehicl Administrators and the Safety Helmet Council of America have in compliance testing?; As indicated above, manufacturers are responsible for certifying thei compliance with FMVSS No. 218. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration monitors compliance with FMVSS No. 218 and other safety standards through its enforcement program. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) is an association of State and provincial government officials who are involved in the administration and enforcement of motor vehicle and traffic laws in the United States and Canada. The Safety Helmet Council of America is a trade association of helmet manufacturers. We are uncertain what role these organizations currently play in either assisting manufacturers in meeting their certain responsibilities under FMVSS No. 218 or, in the case of the AAMVA, in the enforcement of State safety standards identical to FMVSS No. 218.; We have enclosed a copy of a recent interpretation issued by thi agency which concerns preemption and pre-sale State enforcement of safety standards. Among other things, the notice discusses this agency's interpretation of the effect of a State law which purports to require, as part of a pre-sale enforcement program of a State standard identical to FMVSS No. 218, that approval of helmets be obtained from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.; As the notice states, it is the opinion of the agency that the State are preempted under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act from engaging in activities involving the pre-sale enforcement of State standards identical to the FMVSS's where such activities involve procedures or impose burdens which differ in any significant respect from those of the Federal regulatory scheme under the Act.; Thus, any State requirement which necessitates that manufacturers pa fees in order to obtain approval under a State standard identical to a FMVSS, and any imposition of requirements for approval which has the effect of proscribing the sale of equipment certified under the Act to a standard such as FMVSS No. 218 is preempted by operation of the Act and of the agency's action in adopting the Federal standard in question.; States may, however, choose to enforce State standards identical t Federal standards through the purchase and testing of an item at State expense. Thus, a State might purchase a motorcycle helmet and test it according to the requirements of a State standard identical to FMVSS No. 218.; e) Can you advise me where I can purchase a magnesium alloy tes headform and support arm for the required shock absorption testing?; We are aware of two companies that market magnesium alloy tes headforms. Controlled Castings Corporation has recently been involved with contract work for the agency and has A, C and D sizes available. (Only the size C headform is currently required by the compliance tests of FMVSS No. 218). We are currently working with their headforms for research purposes. The United States Testing Company, Inc., also markets a version of the size C headform. It is the only company we are aware of that markets monorail drop equipment, which includes the support arm. We do not know if they sell the support arm by itself.; We would point out that the support arm marketed by the United State Testing Company, Inc., may be too heavy for the size C headform produced by Controlled Castings Corporation. It may, therefore, require some modification before it can be used for testing purposes with that headform.; The addresses of those two companies are: >>>Controlled Castings Corporation, 31 Commercial Court, Plainview, N 11803; United States Testing Company, Inc., Instrument Marketing Division 1415 Park Avenue, Hoboken, NJ 07030<<<; In regard to your questions (c) and (e), you may wish to contact th Safety Helmet Council of America. It may be able to give you additional information about qualified test laboratories and suppliers of testing equipment. The address of that organization is:; >>>Safety Helmet Council of America, 9841 Airport Boulevard, Suit 1208, Los Angeles, CA 90045<<<; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1085OpenMr. John F. Eisberg, Robins, Davis & Lyons, 33 South Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; Mr. John F. Eisberg Robins Davis & Lyons 33 South Fifth Street St. Paul MN 55101; Dear Mr. Eisberg: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1973, concerning fuel tank fire incidental to vehicular collisions.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity which was effective January 1, 1968, requires that the fuel system of passenger cars shall withstand a 30 mile- per-hour frontal fixed barrier collision with a fuel loss rate no greater than one ounce per minute after impact. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information, along with a copy of a proposed amendment (*Federal Register*, Volume 35, No. 169, August 29, 1970), which is intended to expand this standard to include rollover situations, as well as rear impacts.; The need for a protective fire wall between the fuel tank and passenge compartment has been studied and is being considered as part of the passive protective measures to insure driver and passenger protection within the occupant compartment. A study by Derwyn M. Severy, et al., 'Postcrash Fire Studies Show Need for Rear-Seat Fire Wall and Rupture-Proof Fuel Tank,' was published in the July 1969 issue of *The SAE Journal.* This article may also be of interest in your research.; If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate t contact us.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3811OpenMr. Lee Jay Mandell, President, LJM Associates, Inc., 22030 Lanark Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304; Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President LJM Associates Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park CA 91304; Dear Mr. Mandell: This is in response to your further letter of December 15, 1983 regarding your lighting device, asking me to reconsider my views of November 22 that it offered the potential for impairment of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.; To recap, your device utilizes the body panel between the left an right rear lamps to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backup up. Roughly, it operates by lights (red? amber?) spreading from the center of the red translucent panel outward, in either or both directions. I concluded that the novelty of the device offered a great potential for confusion, in the stop mode, a following driver will see the steady red light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, and also the dynamic lights spreading out from the center of the red panel. You have indicated that modification of the flash rate will not be a problem, and were the light spread activation perceptually almost simultaneous with that of the stop lamp, the possibility of impairment would diminish.; I also commented that the same dynamic light spread is seen but mean to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously (your system's hazard warning mode). Since all lamps are flashing, we believe that the potential for impairment is much less in this instance.; We note that you have added two further functions since last writing u about your device: displays of words in the hazard mode indicating whether road service or police aid is needed. This is an interesting concept and we regard it as a supplement to the hazard signal which would not impair its effectiveness.; In the final analysis, aftermarket equipment such as you propose t offer, which is not itself incorporated into the Federal lighting standard, is subject to the 'approval' or 'disapproval' of the various jurisdictions in which motor vehicles equipped with it are being operated. It is a mistaken impression that the Federal Government 'approves' or 'disapproves' aftermarket equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act gives us no authority to 'approve' or 'disapprove.' We can and do, however, point out potential problems of a safety nature that may arise from use of a device that is not covered by a safety standard.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2703OpenMr. J. Kevin Smith, Director, Product Reliability and Quality, North American Operations, International Harvester, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; Mr. J. Kevin Smith Director Product Reliability and Quality North American Operations International Harvester 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60611; Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your October 3, 1977, letter questioning the positio of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the public dissemination of defect and noncompliance information by press release prior to a manufacturer's notification as required by Part 577, *Defect and Noncompliance Notification*. In your letter, you refer to a press release issued by the agency concerning defects in some of your vehicles. This release was made prior to your providing notification to the vehicle owners.; The NHTSA through Part 577 requires that manufacturers provid notification to the owners of vehicles involved in defect or noncompliance recalls. This notification must be provided, in the case of a manufacturer- initiated recall, within a 'reasonable time' after a manufacturer discovers the existence of a defect or noncompliance. You conclude that the publication of an agency press release prior to the time that a manufacturer notifies owners of a defect or noncompliance in effect shortens the 'reasonable time' allowed for such notification. This in turn, you suggest, results in unnecessary public concern before the manufacturer is capable of implementing the recall.; The publication of an agency press release does not shorten the tim period allotted a manufacturer under Part 577 for providing notification. A manufacturer is still permitted a 'reasonable time' to comply with the requirements. The NHTSA has adopted the 'reasonable time' approach to manufacturer notification of owners, because it realizes that the amount of preparation to conduct a recall may vary depending upon the complexity of the defect or noncompliance.; The agency operates under different timing considerations than thos applicable to a manufacturer. The NHTSA is under a mandate to ensure that vehicles containing potentially dangerous defects or noncompliances are corrected or removed from highway service as soon as possible. The agency understands that any recall and remedy process is somewhat time- consuming for a manufacturer, and accordingly, vehicles will not be repaired immediately. Therefore, in the interim time between a manufacturer's discovery of a defect or noncompliance and his notice and remedy, the agency must issue warnings to vehicle owners so that they can take the appropriate action. Such action might include checking their vehicle for possible signs of failure or discontinuance of use of the affected vehicle.; In summation, the agency must balance the manufacturer's need for reasonable time to notify and remedy with the vehicle owner's need for immediate information pertaining to any potential safety problems. This balance has taken the form of the NHTSA's issuance of a warning pending a manufacturer's issuance of notification. The NHTSA concludes that through this mechanism safety is preserved and manufacturers are not unduly burdened.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam2353OpenMr. George E. Brown, Executive Director - Vehicle Emissions & Safety, Jeep Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. George E. Brown Executive Director - Vehicle Emissions & Safety Jeep Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Brown: This is in response to Jeep Corporation's March 9, 1976, petition fo rulemaking as supplemented by its letter of April 1, 1976. The petition requested an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, that would add the following sentence at the end of S7.1.6(b):; >>>For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does no include the weight of work-performing accessories.<<<; The supplement to the petition included a list of 15 examples of suc work-performing accessories. The amendment would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove these accessories before performing compliance testing pursuant to the standard.; In Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments o 1974, (15 U.S.C. 1392 note), Congress directed that the fuel system integrity standard take effect in the form in which it had been most recently published. Conditions for amending the standard were specified in Section 108(b) as follows:; >>>*Amendment or Repeal of Standard*.--The Secretary may amend th standard described in subsection (a) in order to correct technical errors in the standard, and may amend or repeal such standard if he determines such amendment or repeal will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.<<<; The practical result of the amendment requested by Jeep would be tha certain vehicles would not, as is presently specified, be required to conform to the standard in the form in which they are actually delivered to purchasers and used on the highways. In fact, the presence of work-performing accessories could seriously degrade a vehicle's performance in the standard's barrier crash tests. We therefore cannot conclude that the requested amendment 'will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.' Furthermore, the amendment goes beyond the mere correction of technical errors in the standard. Consequently, Jeep's petition must be and is hereby denied.; Despite this denial, however, the NHTSA interprets the term 'unloade vehicle weight' in a manner that provides some of the relief that Jeep has requested. The term is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as follows:; >>>'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximu capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.<<<; The 'weight of a vehicle' includes the weight of those accessories tha are installed on a vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily removed. Among such accessories are the following:; >>>air bag suspension systems, draw bars, headlamp and radiato protectors, helper-springs, hitches, pintle hooks, power take-offs, push bumpers, step bumpers and side steps, tire carriers, wreckers<<<; The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the 'weight of a vehicle'. Consequently, accessories in this latter group would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301- 75. Among these are the following:; >>>snow plows, spreaders, tow bars<<< Categorization of winches, the remaining accessory that you hav listed, depends on the nature of the particular winch. One that is generally removed only when its presence interferes with other vehicle functions would be included in the evaluation of 'unloaded vehicle weight'. A portable winch that is ordinarily removed after use, however, would not be included in that evaluation.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5496OpenMr. Steve Brooks General Manager IAD West Coast, Inc. 5761 McFadden Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92649; Mr. Steve Brooks General Manager IAD West Coast Inc. 5761 McFadden Ave. Huntington Beach CA 92649; Dear Mr. Brooks: This replies to your letter of November 1, 1994, t John Womack, former Acting Chief Counsel. IAD West Coast ('IAD') is converting a Subaru panel van from internal combustion to electric drive. The vehicle is currently a prototype but 'will be modified in the state of California, to OEM build standards.' You have asked for help 'with the definition of crash testing for front and side impact for the vehicle for current and future production, also with the requirement for dual air bags if necessary.' Because we did not understand what you meant by 'definition', Taylor Vinson of this Office spoke with you on January 24, 1995. He learned that IAD is engineering the prototype for production by another company, and that your question related to the extent of crash testing that is required before production. He then explained to you that there is no legal requirement that prototype vehicles be crashed, but that production vehicles must conform with the performance requirements of standards with crash demonstration procedures, and that the manufacturer's certification of compliance may be based upon good faith surrogates to crash testing such as computer simulation, engineering studies, and mathematical calculations. The Department of Transportation, however, tests in the manner specified in a standard, and if there is a test failure, will ask the manufacturer to supply the data upon which it based its certification. Your letter also asks about 'the requirement for dual air bags if necessary in the future.' Manufacturers of light trucks will be required to install dual air bags in not less than 80% of vehicles produced between September 1, 1997, and September 1, 1998, and in 100% of production from September 1, 1998, on. Finally, you have asked whether we have information on approach and departure angles. These are not part of the FMVSS, and are established by the manufacturer in designing a vehicle. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1986OpenMr. 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: This is in response to your letter dated April 2, 1975, in which yo ask several questions regarding test procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; We are not aware of any inconsistency between Standard No. 218 and th compliance procedures that our Office of Standards Enforcement has developed in connection with it. If there were any, of course, the standard would be controlling. The standard specifies a drop height, and a 'guided free fall' from that height. We consider 'free fall' to be an objective and unambiguous physical term, meaning a movement in response to the force of gravity unimpeded by any resistance except air resistance. The requirement the equipment must be capable of meeting, therefore, refers to a fall in which the guiding method imparts no significant resistance, *i.e.*, it does not affect the results. Although in practice a perfectly frictionless guided fall may be unachievable, a manufacturer must ensure that his product would meet the requirement no matter how small the friction. An analogy is the fixed collision barrier defined in S 49 CFR 571.3, which requires a vehicle to meet a barrier crash test requirement using a barrier that absorbs no significant part of the vehicle's energy. Helmet manufacturers must assume, therefore, that the government will test their products using test fixtures that impart as little friction to the fall as possible. We therefore consider the issue of what systems were 'in general use at the time ANS Z90.1 and FMVSS 218 were written' to be irrelevant to the question of compliance.; This discussion should answer your first two questions. We do no accord any legal status to 'old' test procedures as opposed to 'new' ones. With regard to the question about correlation studies, we have not conducted any and I know of no plans to do so. Finally, Standard 218 presently covers only size C helmets because drawings and headforms for the other sizes are not yet available. Therefore, no formal compliance testing can be done on other sizes of helmets. We hope soon to publish drawings and make available models of size A, B and D headforms, at which time a date will be set for extending Standard 218 to these other sizes. Your continuing interest in motorcycle safety is greatly appreciated.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0694OpenMr. L. D. Brown, Manager Truck Tank Division, Renick & Mahoney Division, Garsite Products, Inc., 10 E. Grand Boulevard, Deer Park, L.I., NY 11729; Mr. L. D. Brown Manager Truck Tank Division Renick & Mahoney Division Garsite Products Inc. 10 E. Grand Boulevard Deer Park L.I. NY 11729; Dear Mr. Brown: We have received the pictures of the airport refuelers which yo manufacture. While these pictures were received after we had mailed our letter of April 17, 1972, to you, they confirm the opinion expressed in that letter that these vehicles are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and are considered to be trucks under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1656OpenMr. Gorou Utsunomiya, Liaison Engineer in U.S.A., Toyo Kogyo Detroit Office, 3841 Mystic Valley Drive, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48013; Mr. Gorou Utsunomiya Liaison Engineer in U.S.A. Toyo Kogyo Detroit Office 3841 Mystic Valley Drive Bloomfield Hills MI 48013; Dear Mr. Utsunomiya: This is in acknowledgment of your Defect Information Report, i accordance with the defect reporting regulations, Part 573.; The Defect Information Report involves: 8,422 - Mazda Rotary picku trucks, concerning deformed exhaust pipe protector which may cause tall dry grass to smolder if the vehicle is parked and the grass is in contact with the pipe protector.; The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio identification number has been assigned to the campaign *74-0193*. The first quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by February 5, 1975. Please refer to the above number in all future correspondence concerning this campaign.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject vehicle states that a defect exists 'in the exhaust system of the 1974 Mazda. . . .' This does not conform to Part 577.4(b) since, where vehicles are involved, the defect should be described in this sentence as existing in the vehicle. The reference in the regulation to 'item of motor vehicle equipment' only applies to equipment campaigns. Since this discrepancy in your notification letter does not appear to be serious, mailing of a revised letter will not be required.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
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.