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: deyoung.ztvOpenMr. Jack W. DeYoung Dear Mr. DeYoung: This responds to your letter dated November 15, 2002, and your letter of November 19, 2002, which responded to my letter to you dated November 14, 2002. I regret that your letters were misplaced and that you had to contact us several times. The subject matter of our correspondence is the flash rate of hazard warning signal flashers. Your letter of November 15 (written before you had received my November 14 reply to your letter of October 18) stated your understanding that the agencys interpretation to Robert A. Belcher in 1980 was applicable to your flasher as well. Mr. Belcher had developed a dual mode hazard flasher, which flashed at a constant rate in one mode. In the other, or "distress," mode, the flasher alternated between a short flash and a long flash to simulate the international distress signal "S.O.S."We understood that the flash rate of the emergency distress signal mode would be 71 flashes per minute, and we informed Mr. Belcher that if it maintained this flash rate and met other requirements of J945, "it should qualify" (our letter of October 30, 1980). We further informed Representative Norm Shumway on July 30, 1984, with respect to Mr. Belchers device, that "We find nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes a dual mode flash for hazard flashers, provided that the flash rates chosen [comply], adding that "current flashers, of course, operate at a constant rate." We do not appear to have provided any other interpretations regarding flashers operating at a rate other than constant. On November 19, you replied to my letter of November 14, stating that your system was designed to produce 120 cycles per minute and that you did not agree with our calculations which indicated a rate of more than 120 cycles per minute. I would note here that, in contrast to the Belcher system which operated at a flash rate of only 71 per minute, the 120 flashes per minute that you ascribe to your system is the maximum that the standard permits. As I mentioned in my letter of November 14, SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966, is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 as the Federal requirement for flashers. Paragraph 3 of SAE J945 specifies that the "flashing rate . . . shall be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles." (our emphasis). You are correct in your remark that in our calculation we took "an arithmetic average of three flash rates without considering the amount of time each uses," and that this was an "unweighted average." We do not read the word "average" in SAE J945 as meaning anything other than an arithmetic average. Thus, in our opinion, compliance with Standard No. 108 requires that the flash rate be met over an arithmetic average of any number of three or more consecutive cycles that may be chosen after a minimum of five consecutive cycles have occurred since activation of the signal. Thus, your flash rate increases to 144.3 per minute if we measure the rate over 4 cycles, and to 148.7 per minute if we measure the rate over 5 cycles. Your letter of November 15 also asked for confirmation that it would be permissible for a truck or bus owner to install your flasher even if it did not meet Standard No. 108s flash rate requirements. Paragraph S5.8.1 of Standard No. 108 requires that lighting equipment manufactured to replace original equipment be designed to conform to the standard. We regard your device as a flasher intended to replace a flasher manufactured in accordance with SAE J945. Thus, its flash rate must be within the parameters specified in SAE J945. The flash rate exceeds the maximum rate specified. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or introduce in interstate commerce any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard and is not certified as meeting that standard. Under 49 U.S.C. 30165, a person who violates Section 30112(a) is liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation, up to $15,000,000 for a related series of violations. Thus, we do not anticipate that you will manufacture and sell your device, and the question of installation is moot. If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2003 |
ID: Dhiman1OpenMs. Savitri Dhiman Wheel to Wheel, LLC 570 Executive Drive Troy, MI 48083 Dear Ms. Dhiman: This responds to your letter regarding the certification requirements for alterers under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS). As you correctly pointed out in your letter, final stage manufacturers and alterers must comply with the standard beginning on September 1, 2008, a date one year after the mandatory compliance date for large manufacturers. Specifically, you asked whether, prior to the mandatory compliance date applicable to it, an alterer may disable the TPMS that is already installed on the vehicle as part of the alteration process. If so, you inquired about what effect, if any, taking the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 138 would have on vehicle original equipment manufacturer (OEM) in terms of the credit it claimed under the phase-in for the standard. As discussed in further detail below, pursuant to a February 2005 final rule, alterers are permitted to make modifications to a certified vehicle that would take it out of compliance with a new safety requirement, until such time as compliance is mandatory for those entities. Such action would not impact the OEMs calculations in terms of meeting the standards phase-in requirements, unless the OEM has established an authorized conversion program, through which it would be deemed to have consented to the alterations which it knows would take the vehicle out of compliance. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. Generally, alterers are entities that modify completed vehicles prior to first retail sale. Alterers must determine whether those modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturers certification of compliance, and if so, must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with those safety standards that were affected by the modification. Turning to the matters raised in your letter, we note that FMVSS No. 138 sets forth the requirements for tire pressure monitoring systems. Under paragraph S7, Phase-in schedule, the standard provides that not less than 20 percent of covered vehicles manufactured during the period from October 5, 2005, to August 31, 2006, must be equipped with a TPMS that meets the requirements of the standard. For the period from September 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007, manufacturers must certify 70 percent of applicable vehicle production. All vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2007, must meet the requirements of the standard. Paragraph S7 of the standard also includes provisions for carry-forward and carry-backward credits, which provide manufacturers with additional flexibility in terms of implementation. Furthermore, paragraph S7.7, Final-stage manufacturers and alterers, excludes those named entities from the phase-in and sets a separate, later compliance date, providing: Vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after having previously been certified in accordance with Part 567 of this chapter are not subject to the requirements of S7.1 through S7.4. Instead, vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that are altered must comply with this standard beginning on September 1, 2008. This extended compliance date for final-stage manufacturers and alterers is consistent with agency policy expressed in a final rule published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2005, which provides an automatic one year of additional lead time for new safety requirements for intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers, unless the agency determines with respect to a particular requirement that a longer or shorter time period is appropriate (70 FR 7414). This provision was incorporated through an amendment at 49 CFR 571.8(b). In the final rule, the agency acknowledged that prior to the compliance deadline, in certain circumstances, alterers may find it necessary as part of their operations to make modifications to a vehicle that may take it out of compliance with one or more safety standards, stating: NHTSA noted in the SNPRM [supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking] that incomplete vehicle manufacturers often do not provide final-stage manufacturers with information necessary to certify their vehicles until shortly before, and in some cases even after, the effective date of the standard in question. The same problem arises when an incomplete vehicle is substantively changed as the result of a model year changeover. The agency stated that giving alterers an additional year allows alterers to take certified vehicles out of compliance, an action typically disfavored by NHTSA. However, the problems faced by final-stage manufacturers also are applicable to alterers. If a vehicle manufacturer waits until the last possible moment to certify vehicles, alterers will not have the ability to conduct any engineering analysis to determine if the alterations affect compliance. (70 FR 7414, 7418) Thus, this new rule acknowledges that, in some cases, alterers may require additional time to conform their manufacturing operations in order to be able to maintain compliance with the requirements of new safety standards while continuing to produce the types of vehicles needed by their customers. With that said, we encourage final-stage manufacturers and alterers to maintain compliance with the new safety requirements, if possible, even prior to the mandatory compliance date. We next turn to the issue of the impact that alterers actions taking vehicles out of compliance with a safety standard would have on the OEMs calculations under the standards phase-in schedule. In general, we will not presume that OEMs have control over or even knowledge of all modifications to be performed by their alterer-customers. We also do not believe that the number of altered vehicles in question will have a significant impact on the overall phase-in for TPMS. Accordingly, under normal circumstances, there would not be a reduction in an OEMs phase-in calculations to account for altered vehicles that are taken out of compliance with Standard No. 138. However, an exception may be the case where an OEM vehicle manufacturer enters into an agreement with a particular converter, which the OEM knows will routinely be taking vehicles out of compliance with FMVSS No. 138. We believe that this situation is distinguishable from one where the OEM makes a routine, arms-length transaction for the sale of vehicles to a company performing alterations. This approach is consistent with our March 2, 1987, interpretation letter to Mr. Douglas Fairhurst (see enclosure), in which we analyzed Jaguars contractual arrangement with a company that specialized in converting hard-top vehicles into convertible models, in which case newly-required automatic safety belts were removed from the vehicle. A copy of letter enclosed. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure
ref:138 d.12/27/06 |
2006 |
ID: diamstOpen Mr. Gary Shultz Dear Mr. Shultz: This responds to your letter asking about Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. You noted that section 583.6 specifies that manufacturers are to determine the percentage U.S./Canadian Parts Content for each carline on a model year basis, before the beginning of each model year. You stated, however, that the regulation does not indicate what should be done when there is a change of plans in the source of production for a particular carline in the middle of the model year. According to your letter, one of your carlines currently in production will now be manufactured in both the U.S. and Japan, which may significantly affect the carline's current calculation for content as well as the final assembly point. You requested confirmation whether the label should be changed to reflect the change in domestic/foreign content in the middle of the model year or whether section 583.6 should be relied on as the authority for determining a carline's content only on a one-time model year basis. You also requested confirmation as to whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, section 583.5(a) requires manufacturers to provide five basic items of information on the label: (1) U.S./Canadian parts content; (2) Major sources of foreign parts content; (3) Final assembly point; (4) Country of origin for the engine; and (5) Country of origin for the transmission. The first two items are determined on a "carline" basis; the last three items are determined with respect to individual vehicles. Both Part 583 and the American Automobile Labeling Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32304) contemplate that U.S./Canadian parts content and Major sources of foreign parts content are determined on a once-a-model- year basis for a particular carline. In particular, section 32304(b)(2) reads as follows: At the beginning of each model year, each manufacturer shall establish the percentages required for each carline to be indicated on the label . . . . Those percentages are applicable to that carline for the entire model year. . . . We believe that Congress included this provision to reduce unnecessary manufacturer costs, and was seeking to make it clear that the manufacturers could not be required to revise their calculations during the model year. The specified percentages are estimates by nature, and the assumptions underlying them are subject to change during the model year. It would be very burdensome to manufacturers to be required to constantly recalculate the estimated percentages throughout the model year. Your letter raises the issue, however, of whether a manufacturer is permitted to revise the carline percentages in the event of a major change in source of production during a model year. It is our opinion that a manufacturer may revise the percentages in such circumstances, at its option. Such revision would be analogous to correcting an error and would prevent the possibility of misleading consumers. If you do make such a revision, however, the revised estimates should reflect the model year as a whole and not just the balance of the model year. In addition, the label should include a note indicating that the carline percentages have been revised during the model year. This is necessary to prevent confusion when consumers compare the labels of vehicles within the same carline manufactured at different times. You also asked whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Since final assembly point is determined for individual vehicles rather than carlines, the label must be changed to indicate the actual final assembly point of the vehicle. See section 583.5(a)(3). The section which you cited, i.e., section 583.5(e), permits manufacturers to provide additional information for carlines assembled in the U.S./Canada and in one or more other countries. Since your carline would now be assembled in the U.S./Canada and Japan, your company may avail itself of this option. I note that section 583.5(e)(3) provides that a manufacturer selecting this option for a particular carline must provide the specified additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline. In your situation, you would need to provide the additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline, beginning from the time the vehicles were manufactured in both places. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:583 d:2/l0/95
|
1970 |
ID: DIERSEN.ETLOpenMr. Dave Diersen Dear Mr. Diersen: Your letter to the Secretary of Transportation proposing a change in the Federal odometer disclosure law has been referred to me for response. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is the agency in the Department of Transportation that is responsible for the Federal regulations that implement the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 as amended (P.L. 99-579). NHTSA recently received and responded to a letter from Congressman Henry Hyde that inquired about issues raised in a letter you wrote to the Congressman on this same subject. That letter states this agency's position on the issues you raise in the attachment to your letter to Secretary Peña. As that letter states, NHTSA does not believe that the change to the Federal regulation that you advocate would be advisable. State law may be able to provide a remedy for the problem you describe more effectively and more efficiently. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff. Sincerely, Samuel Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:580 d:8/8/96 |
1996 |
ID: DNBA_B.Nicolle_Parts_573_and_579OpenBill Nicolle Product Safety and Compliance Officer Daimler Buses North America 350 Hazelhurst Road Mississauga, Ontario Canada L5J 4T8 Dear Mr. Nicolle, Thank you for your email of June 1, 2012 requesting a written notification of the legal obligations of Daimler Buses North America (DBNA) in light of the planned changes at DBNA. You state that DBNA has decided to cease manufacturing and outfitting buses in North America, and explain that this will affect Orion, Sprinter, and Setra buses and motorcoaches. You also state that DBNA will maintain a presence to handle service, warranty, and replacement parts issues for Orion buses, and that Setra will be transferred to MCI Corporation for sales marketing, service and warranty issues. You state that the status of the Sprinter mini-bus is yet to be determined. NHTSA understands that Orion, Sprinter, and Setra are brands of DBNA, and that DBNA fabricated and/or imported these vehicles. The agency also understands that MCI Corporation is not an affiliate of DBNA. You request that the agency furnish a written notification of DBNAs legal obligations for defect and noncompliance recall reporting and early warning reporting. With respect to defect and noncompliance recall reporting, including determining the existence of defects and noncompliances, providing notification to NHTSA and vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers of such, remedying defects and noncompliances, and filing quarterly reports, legal liability falls on the manufacturer of the vehicles. See 49 USC 30118, 30120; 49 CFR 573.5. Manufacturer is defined as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. 49 USC 30102(a)(5). Since DBNA is the manufacturer of Orion, Sprinter, and Setra buses and motorcoaches, DBNA is responsible for any recall-related obligations associated with these vehicles. If MCI Corporation assumes and fulfills the recall obligations for Setra motor coaches, it would be considered compliance by DBNA. However, DBNA remains liable for these obligations under the statute. With respect to early warning reporting, the vehicle manufacturer is liable for the required reports. See 49 CFR 579.5, 579.11, and 579.2. The early warning regulations define manufacturer as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or importing motor vehicles, or motor vehicle equipment for resale. This term includes any parent corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate, and any subsidiary or affiliate of a parent corporation of such a person. 49 CFR 579.4. However, compliance by the fabricating manufacturer, the importer, the brand name owner, or a parent or subsidiary of such fabricator, importer, or brand name owner of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment is considered compliance by all persons. See 49 CFR 579.3. Accordingly, since DBNA is the manufacturer of Orion, Sprinter, and Setra buses and motorcoaches, DBNA is responsible for submitting early warning reports for these vehicles. However, if MCI Corporation or another Daimler affiliate assumes and fulfills the obligation of submitting to the agency the required early warning reports for DBNAs buses and motor coaches, compliance by MCI Corporation or a Daimler affiliate would be considered compliance by DBNA as well. I note that a bus manufacturer is required to report early warning information only if the aggregate number of buses manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into the United States during the calendar year of the reporting period or during either of the prior two calendar years is 100 or more . . . . 49 CFR 579.22. The aggregate number of buses includes those manufactured, sold, etc., by any parent corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate, and any subsidiary or affiliate of a parent corporation of such a person. Even if reporting of early warning information is not required under 579.22, the agency expects the relevant records to be retained for five years in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 576. Moreover, a manufacturer is required to furnish the agency with all notices, bulletins, and other communications, as specified in 579.5, regardless of whether early warning information reporting is required under 579.22.
I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me or John Piazza on my staff at the address given above or at (202) 366-8852. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Parts 573 and 579 Dated: 7/19/12 |
2012 |
ID: Dynasty_002301OpenMr. Cam Dowall Dear Mr. Dowall: This responds to your letter and phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff regarding your companys intention to import a "low speed vehicle" (LSV) into the United States. Your letter requested approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to sell an LSV that is based on the body and platform of a full speed production vehicle. As explained below, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, the vehicle you described can be imported as an LSV so long as it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, Low speed vehicles, and all other applicable Federal regulations. By way of background, NHTSA has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA defined the types of vehicles that can be certified as LSVs and established FMVSS No. 500 to ensure that LSVs are equipped with appropriate motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, 49 U.S.C. 30115 establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs. In your letter, you explained that Dynasty Electric Car Corp. (Dynasty) plans to import into the United States a vehicle that would consist of a Russian full speed production vehicle (the OKA) equipped with an electric motor and controller in place of the gasoline engine and drive train for which the vehicle was originally designed. You further stated that Dynasty intends to sell this vehicle in the United States as an LSV and that the new vehicle will meet all current FMVSS No. 500 requirements. FMVSS No. 500 and the associated LSV definition were established to accommodate a new category of small motor vehicles. The agency defines an LSV as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose attainable speed in 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile) is more than 32 km per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) on a paved level surface (49 CFR 571.3(b)). The definition relies on the maximum speed capability of 40 km per hour as a characteristic representative of the small vehicles that gave rise to the associated standards. We note that the purpose of FMVSS No. 500 is not to accommodate speed-governed motor vehicles which otherwise might be capable of meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In response to an inquiry regarding use of a speed-governing device on a Land Rover, the agency stated that, "there are no circumstances under which the addition of a speed governing device to a high-speed vehicle would make the vehicle meet the definition of low-speed vehicle" (June 2000 letter to Mr. Thomas Dahl; copy enclosed). However, you stated that your company is not governing the speed capabilities of a full speed production vehicle. The vehicles you are intending to import would be limited to a maximum speed capability of 40 km per hour with the use of Dynasty supplied electric motors and controllers. This is within the scope of the LSV definition. Therefore, if the vehicles were to comply with FMVSS No. 500 and all other applicable Federal standards, then it could be imported into the United States. We also note that NHTSA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend the LSV definition by including a maximum vehicle weight (68 FR 68319; December 8, 2003). If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2004 |
ID: EAtonfinalOpenMr. Daniel I. Hanrahan Dear Mr. Hanrahan: This responds to your e-mail and phone conversations with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff in which you ask about the certification responsibilities associated with a vehicle fitted with new technology for test purposes. As we understand it, your client has been developing a hydraulic launch assist system (HLA) and has been working with vehicle manufacturers and the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate its benefits. Your client has retrofitted three Ford F350 trucks with the HLA. Your client owns one of the trucks. Ford owns the other two. You intend to display these vehicles at an exhibit in Alaska hosted by the Department of Defense. The trucks will operate only on test track/open lot settings. They will not be driven on the public roads. You also ask about a Peterbilt Refuse Hauler that your client has fitted with the HLA system. Peterbilt owns the vehicle, but will drive it on the public roads from Michigan to Texas. As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that manufacturers certify their vehicles as compliant with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 U.S.C. § 30012 provides that: A person may not manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title. A motor vehicle may be subject to this certification requirement prior to a first retail sale since a vehicle is considered to be introduced into interstate commerce if it is introduced into a means of interstate traffic – i.e., used on public roads. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations also specify, for vehicles that are built in multiple stages or which have been altered, the certification responsibilities of the various manufacturers that have built the vehicle. Alterers perform modifications on completed vehicles prior to an initial retail sale and carry certain certification responsibilities. Modifiers make changes to vehicles after their first retail sale. Section 30122 prohibits modifications that would impede the safe operation of a previously certified vehicle: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance and repair) when the device or element is inoperative. We understand that your client has been working with the Environmental Protection Agency to demonstrate advanced new technology. Your client will equip Ford F350 trucks with the HLA system and demonstrate the vehicles on test tracks. Ford has retained ownership of these vehicles and has consigned them to the EPA for purposes of this test program. The vehicles will not be driven on the public roads. These apparently are ordinary production vehicles manufactured to comply and certified as compliant with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Initially, it is not clear whether adding the HLA system to these trucks would affect their compliance with the FMVSS. Regardless, however, based on the facts as presented to us, there are no current plans to enter the vehicles into interstate commerce, and thus they are not required to comply with all applicable FMVSS. If the vehicles are subsequently sold to persons who would operate them on the public roads, they will need to comply with all applicable safety standards at the time of their first retail sale and be so certified. Because Ford has retained ownership over these vehicles and would, presumably, be the seller, your client would not be responsible for the certification. We understand that the Peterbilt Refuse Hauler is to be driven on the public roads from Michigan to Texas, and therefore that it will enter interstate commerce. Accordingly, the vehicle must comply with all applicable FMVSS when fitted with the HLA system. Based on the facts as presented to us, it appears that your client would be considered an “alterer” under NHTSA’s regulations and should certify that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS as altered. We commend your client for its efforts in working with the EPA to develop and demonstrate advanced vehicle technologies. If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at 202 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Chief Counsel ref:567 d.11/12/04 |
2004 |
ID: eggiman.ztvOpenMr. J. Michael Eggiman Dear Mr. Eggiman: On January 13, 2003, you wrote us a letter, the purpose of which was "to introduce to you people of the Counsel, a new concept in which the flashing of all brake lights, including the CHMSLs, in the event of a vehicles engine stalling." Thank you for the introduction. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning in use, and, for this reason, your invention could not be used. All vehicles today are equipped with a hazard warning lamp system which the operator can use to flash the vehicles turn signal lamps if the vehicle stalls. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
1970 |
ID: eightyrs.crsOpen Mr. Lindsay Harris Dear Mr. Harris: I am writing to clarify a statement in a letter from this office, which was referenced in, and enclosed with, your letter dated October 14, 1996 to Pat Wallace of our Office of Defects Investigation. The letter from this office, which was dated July 27, 1989 and addressed to Mr. Robert V. Potter, Jr. of Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc., stated that in the event that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is found to exist in a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment, the manufacturer is required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act "to provide a remedy without charge to consumers for eight years after purchase." In your letter to Ms. Wallace, you cite this statement as indicating that there is a limit to the time in which a manufacturer is obligated to remedy a defect or noncompliance. To the extent that it implies that a manufacturer's obligation to remedy a defect or noncompliance expires eight years after the purchase of an affected product, this statement does not accurately characterize the relevant statute. The statement was derived from a provision of the Safety Act, now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30120(g), which reads as follows:
This provision relieves a manufacturer from the obligation to provide a remedy without charge for defects and noncompliances in products that were first purchased more than eight years before the manufacturer furnishes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and affected vehicle owners with notification of the defect or noncompliance. The quoted language from section 30120(g) should not be interpreted as limiting a manufacturer's responsibility to remedy defects and noncompliances to a period of eight years from the purchase of an affected product. If a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment is purchased less than eight years before its manufacturer provides notification that it contains a defect or noncompliance, the manufacturer's obligation to remedy the defect or noncompliance remains in existence for the full service life of the vehicle or equipment item. Contrary to the manner in which you appear to have interpreted the statement in our July 27, 1989 letter to Mr. Potter, this obligation does not expire eight years after the purchase of the affected product. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120(a)(1)(B), manufacturers of replacement equipment, including child safety seats, may elect to remedy a safety defect or noncompliance "by repairing the equipment or replacing the equipment with identical or reasonably equivalent equipment." Therefore, Fisher-Price may not, as your letter suggests, "supply replacement parts until such times as stocks are depleted and thereafter provide a refund less an allowance for depreciation." The latter alternative may only be chosen by vehicle manufacturers. Compare 49 U.S.C. 30120(a)(1)(A) with 30120(a)(1)(B). We regret any confusion that may have resulted from the statement in our June 27, 1989 letter. If you have any further questions concerning our interpretation of the notification and remedy requirements for defects and noncompliances, please contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238. Any questions regarding the implementation of these requirements should be directed to Jon White of our Office of Defects Investigation at 202-366-5227. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Robert V. Potter, Esquire ref:VSA d.12/17/96 |
1996 |
ID: EJones.ajdOpenErika Z. Jones, Esquire
Dear Ms. Jones: This is in reply to your letter dated January 5, 2004, seeking two interpretations of 49 CFR Part 579, "Reporting of Information and Communications About Potential Defects."Both requests for interpretation involve reporting consumer complaints related to child restraints pursuant to the early warning reporting (EWR) requirements. In particular, you seek guidance on how to report consumer complaints that erroneously identify the production year of the affected child restraint as a year in which the identified make/model restraint was not manufactured. In addition, you seek a clarification of the definition of "consumer complaint" with respect to communications related to safety recalls. You ask the agency to confirm your understanding that the agency does not expect manufacturers to record calls to request a repair kit or ask about participation in a safety recall as "consumer complaints" for purposes of EWR. In response to your first request, I note that the agency addressed a similar concern raised by the Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association (JPMA) in a request for reconsideration of the EWR rule.See 68 Fed. Reg. 35132 (June 11, 2003). JPMA had asked how to report consumer complaint/warranty claim information when the production date is illegible. We responded that when a manufacturer is confronted with a reportable item that does not include the production year of the child restraint, the manufacturer should enter the number "9999" in the template. See 68 Fed. Reg. at 35136.Child restraint manufacturers should report similarly when they receive a consumer complaint that specifies a year in which the model was not produced. Your second request asks the agency to confirm your understanding that the agency does not expect manufacturers to record communications "to request a repair kit that is being offered pursuant to a safety recall, or to ask about participation in a safety recall" as "consumer complaints" for the purposes of EWR. The definition of "consumer complaint" includes a communication made by a consumer "expressing dissatisfaction with a product, or any actual or potential defect in a product." 49 CFR 579.4. With respect to communications about recall remedies, the preamble to the final rule explained that:
67 Fed. Reg. 45822, 45847 (July 10, 2002). The agency intended to receive communications relating to failures of a recall remedy that allow a defect to continue, not communications seeking information about the recall itself. Thus, we confirm your understanding that general communications requesting a repair kit or to participate in a safety recall campaign are not "consumer complaints" for the purposes of EWR. If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:579 |
2004 |
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.