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: aiam4064OpenMs. Cynthia R. Syverson, Manufacturers Representative, P.O. Box 23314, Jacksonville, FL 32217; Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson Manufacturers Representative P.O. Box 23314 Jacksonville FL 32217; Dear Ms. Syverson: Thank you for your letter of January 7, 1986, inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a sun shading product you enclosed with your letter and asking whether the product complies with our standards. The product is a rolldown sun shade, which when extended covers a 15 x 18 inch area of a vehicle window with a piece of perforated plastic. The product is designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to this product.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.; We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazin Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. I am returning under separate cover, the sample you sent.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0027OpenMr. J. Lombard,Commercial Manager,S.I.C.A Peugeot,75 Avenue de la Grande Armee,Paris 16,France; Mr. J. Lombard Commercial Manager S.I.C.A Peugeot 75 Avenue de la Grande Armee Paris 16 France; Dear Mr. Lombard:#Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1967 concerning the clarification of several requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105.#The bulb for the emergency brake system effectiveness indicator may also be used for the hand brake indicator light. Further, the means for establishing the electrical contact for testing the emergency system indicator bulb may be the hand brake lever.#This clarification is not considered as a change in the requirements of the standard sa issued. All characteristics required for the indicator light must be met.# Sincerely, George C. Nield,Acting Director,Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5225OpenMr. Calin Moldovean Vehicle Technology Engineer TUV America, Inc. 5 Cherry Hill Drive Danvers, MA 01923; Mr. Calin Moldovean Vehicle Technology Engineer TUV America Inc. 5 Cherry Hill Drive Danvers MA 01923; "Dear Mr. Moldovean: This responds to your inquiry asking about ho this agency's regulations would apply to the introduction into the United States of a new 'aftermarket' gas cap. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' By way of background information, 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 is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. There is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is directly applicable to a replacement gas cap. Nevertheless, you should be aware of Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, which may be relevant to the product in question. Standard No. 301 applies only to new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following crash tests. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems. Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to a replacement gas cap, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which you should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes gas caps, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place the gas cap on a motor vehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected. Whether your gas cap could be installed on a vehicle by a person in one of those categories without taking the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 301 or any other applicable Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by the entity making the installation. Please note that the prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, a vehicle owner may install or remove any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the Federal safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the vehicle's safety. We suggest that you also contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect you as the manufacturer of a gas cap. The general telephone number for EPA is (202) 382- 2090. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0477OpenMr. Donald R. Meton, Systems Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Donald R. Meton Systems Safety Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Meton: This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1971, concerning step you plan to take to comply with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), which were amended on October 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 19593). You indicate that you plan to affix, in addition to the required Certification label containing the vehicle's gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings, an additional 'vehicle identification data plate' which would be attached to the driver's door panel inside the cab. This plate will specify an axle capacity for each axle and an additional gross vehicle weight rating, but here the figures will reflect the vehicle's maximum potential capability. The axle capacities on the vehicle identification plate will be the axle manufacturer's ratings, and added together will be the maximum allowable gross vehicle weight rating. It appears from your letter that you intend using the maximum potential capability of the vehicle as a substitute for listing gross axle and vehicle weight ratings for all available tire and wheel combinations, which was proposed as an option for manufacturers in a notice published on October 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 19617). Your question is whether, under the Certification regulations, you may affix the vehicle identification plate in addition to the required Certification label.; While we agree that a legitimate purpose may be served by th information you wish to provide on the vehicle identification plate, we consider that the manner in which you have chosen to furnish this information is inconsistent with the Certification regulations. Specifically, the inclusion of two different figures under the heading 'Gross Vehicle Weight Rating' conflicts with the requirement that a single figure be provided. The figure on the vehicle identification plate may be frequently higher than that on the Certification label, and if followed might result in vehicle overload. Also, the summing of the axle manufacturer's ratings to arrive at a 'gross vehicle weight rating' is not wholly consistent with the definition of that term in 49 CFR S 568.3, which calls for a manufacturer's figure based on the capacity limitations of the vehicle's tires, rims, suspension system and other components, as well as its axles.; If you wish to provide information based on the vehicle's axl capability, we prefer that it not be represented as a vehicle or axle weight rating, but that it be described as the axle manufacturer's rating of the axles.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4967OpenMr. S. Watanabe Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. S. Watanabe Manager Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; "Dear Mr. Watanabe: This responds to your letter of February 6, l992 to the Administrator, requesting an interpretation of section S7.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Section S7.2(b) requires that headlamp lenses be marked 'with the name and/or trademark of the manufacturer, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.' Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan has subsidiaries in Thailand and Taiwan. Each subsidiary uses three manufacturer identification marks, and you have asked whether each subsidiary may use one of the marks as a manufacturer identification under S7.2(b). You also relate that application has been made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to one of those identification marks. Certainly, once registration has been completed, Stanley of Thailand and Stanley of Taiwan may use the registered mark and this will be in compliance with Standard No. 108. Stanley has not registered the other two identification marks (TH STANLEY or TW STANLEY, and STANLEY TH or STANLEY TW) because it has concluded that these are not trademarks but the manufacturer's name. We agree with your suggestion that the identification marks TH STANLEY, TW STANLEY, STANLEY TH, and STANLEY TW are just the manufacturer's name, not a trademark. Section S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108 does not specify any particular form in which the manufacturer's name must appear on the lens, nor does that section require the manufacturer's name to be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, there would be no violation of S7.2(b) if your Thai and Taiwanese subsidiaries mark the lenses of their headlamps with the identification marks identified in your correspondence as manufacturer names. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5462OpenMr. Bryan J Williams Director, International Operations Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co Inc. 1111 East Louisiana Street Evansville, IN 47711; Mr. Bryan J Williams Director International Operations Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co Inc. 1111 East Louisiana Street Evansville IN 47711; "FAX 812-467-2388 Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reply to your FAX o October 24, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting an interpretation regarding the relationship of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to an AAMVA list. Your company manufactures UV coatings for polycarbonate headlamp lenses. These 'provide abrasion resistance properties as well as protecting the plastic lens from the deleterious effects of outdoor exposure.' One of these coatings, UVT200, is used by Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler on headlamp lenses. However, 'UVT200 does not appear on the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) 'Listing of Acceptable Plastics for Optical Lenses and Reflectors Used on Motor Vehicles.'' You inform us that some overseas headlamp manufacturers believe that appearance on the list is required by Federal law and is a prerequisite to certification. The question you ask is: Must a coating for plastic (polycarbonate) headlamp lenses appear on the AAMVA 'Listing . . .' in order to meet the requirements of FMVSS 108? The answer is no. Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that plastic materials used in lenses (which include headlamp lenses) conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts, Such as Lenses and Reflectors of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices, May 1970. Under SAE J576c's outdoor exposure test, the luminous transmittance of the material must not change by more than 25% from its performance before the test. In appearance, the headlamp lens material must not show surface deterioration, crazing, dimensional changes, or delamination. Also, under paragraph S5.1.2(b), after the outdoor exposure test, the haze and surface luster of the material must not be greater than 30 percent haze, as measured by ASTM D-1003-61. Manufacturers have found that a coating is required for the plastics used in headlamp lenses to meet Standard No. 108's outdoor exposure requirements. However, neither SAE J576c or Standard No. 108 require the coating, let alone specify what coating is acceptable. The decision to coat, and the choice of coating, is that of the manufacturer in determining compliance with and certification to Standard No. 108. Therefore, the AAMVA list has no legal relationship to Standard No. 108 and it is immaterial to NHTSA whether the coating used is or is not on the AAMVA list. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5198OpenMr. James Z. Peepas Selecto-Flash, Inc. P.O. Box 879 Orange, NJ 07051; Mr. James Z. Peepas Selecto-Flash Inc. P.O. Box 879 Orange NJ 07051; "Dear Mr. Peepas: We have received your letter of July 9, 1993, t Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting interpretations of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Your questions are directed towards a 48-foot container chassis, but in a telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson you have explained that a 40-foot container chassis is also involved. For simplicity's sake we shall refer to trailers of both lengths collectively as the 'trailer'. The gooseneck on the trailer is 8 feet long. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108 specifies in pertinent part that the side horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting 'need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered.' You have asked whether the length of the gooseneck is included in the 50% computation. The answer is yes. The gooseneck is similar to a trailer tongue, and is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. From the photos you enclosed, we see that retroreflective sheeting has been applied to the gooseneck and the frame rail with approximately the same spacing between segments. If you determine that this configuration meets S5.7.1.4.2(a) without the container load in place, there would be no need to increase the amount of retroreflective sheeting on the trailer behind the gooseneck. The same paragraph also requires that retroreflective sheeting shall be located 'as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface.' You enclosed a photo of a Maersk loaded chassis and note that 'because of space limitations, the striping may not be 4 foot (sic) from the road surface.' You have asked whether there has been a change in height allowance to compensate for space adjustments. The agency has been petitioned for reconsideration of this specification, and to allow a mounting height as low as the 15 inches originally proposed. We have not reached a determination on this point, and the height remains at 4 feet. However, if the manufacturer of a new trailer determines that something less than 4 feet is 'as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface' with respect to a particular trailer design, it may certify conformance of the trailer with the mounting height requirement on that basis. Finally, paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires that the spaces between sheeting be 'distributed as evenly as practicable.' In a telephone call on July 16, you informed Mr. Vinson that in some instances equal spacing may not be possible because of trailer unit numbers and other identification, and structural characteristics. As we have advised in the preceding paragraph, the requirement is modified by what is practicable under the circumstances. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0660OpenMr. Jimmy W. Gerlack, G. and W. Body Works, Post Office Box 585, Durant, OK 74701; Mr. Jimmy W. Gerlack G. and W. Body Works Post Office Box 585 Durant OK 74701; Dear Mr. Gerlack: Thank you for your 'Manufacturer Identification Registration Report with which you submitted a sample of a certification label that you intend to use to fulfill your obligations under Part 567 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, soliciting our advice.; The nomenclature on the label fulfills the requirements. However, ther is some question as to whether the material would meet the permanency requirements of section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act).; The subject is further addressed in the Preamble to the certificatio requirements that became effective on September 1, 1969, '. . . The intent of the requirement is that the label last for the life of the vehicle . . .' (34 F.R. 7031) copy enclosed.; You should assure yourself that the material used will meet thos requirements.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1972OpenMr. Gerhard P. Riechel, Attorney, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Gerhard P. Riechel Attorney Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Reichel: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1975, inquiring as t the permissibility under Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, of offering for sale new vehicles equipped with louvers affixed to the outside of the rear window without installing a rearview mirror on the passenger side.; Standard 111 requires that an outside rearview mirror of substantiall unit magnification be installed on the passenger side of a vehicle where the field of view provided by the inside rearview mirror is obscured by objects other than seated occupants or head restraints. Based upon the information contained in your letter, it appears that the louver affixed to the rear window obstructs the view to the rear provided by the inside mirror. Since this louver does not fall within the two exceptions named in S3.1.1 of the standard (seated occupants and head restraints), a passenger side rearview mirror would be necessary to comply with the requirements of the standard.; The fact that the obstruction is only slight does not affect thi determination, since the standard is clear on the point that the only obscurity allowable is that caused by occupants or head restraints.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5032OpenMr. Tim Flagstad 220 West 14th Street National City, CA 9l950; Mr. Tim Flagstad 220 West 14th Street National City CA 9l950; "Dear Mr. Flagstad: This responds to your FAX of June 20, 1992, wit respect to importation of a 1981 Kenworth truck from Canada. This vehicle bears VIN M911042. You state that you imported the truck on February 12, 1990, through 'a licensed broker and all necessary declarations and papers were properly submitted.' You have enclosed a letter from Kenworth of Canada dated March 6, 1991, stating that this truck was 'in compliance with the U.S. federal laws . . . at the time of delivery', which was August 31, 1981. Although you experienced no difficulty in titling the truck in California, the purchaser of your truck, resident in another state, is 'having a problem registering it' because the VIN has only seven characters. Joan Moniz, the daughter of the purchaser talked with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 23, 24, and 25, 1992, and explained that the problem is that the State of Hawaii is requiring registration as a 1975 vehicle. According to her copy of the HS-7 importation form under which the truck entered the United States, Box 2 was checked, the declaration that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears a certification label to that effect. However, according to her, the truck bears no U.S. certification label, and her records indicate that the date of importation and clearance was January 31, 1990. We are furnishing Ms Moniz a copy of this response. You ask whether paragraph S2 of Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, exempts this vehicle from the 17-character requirement of paragraph S4.2, 'and make it legal in the United States with a seven digit number.' Paragraph S2 of Standard No. 115 applies to trucks and other motor vehicles, and states in pertinent part that 'Vehicles imported into the United States under Sec. 591.5(f), other than by a corporation which was responsible for the assembly of that vehicle, or a subsidiary of such a corporation are exempt from the requirements of S4.2 . . . .' Section 591.5(f) corresponds to Box 3 on the HS-7 importation form, the declaration that the vehicle to be imported was not manufactured in conformity with the safety standards but will be brought into conformity with them. However, S2 makes it clear that conformity does not require the nonconforming vehicle to meet the requirement of Standard No. 115 that VINs be composed of 17 characters. Indeed, S4.9(a) specifically requires passenger cars imported under part 591 to retain their original VINs. We note that the truck in question was imported under section 591.5(b) (Box 2), as a conforming vehicle, and, in a legal sense, is not eligible for the exclusion provided for vehicles imported under section 591.5(f). However, importation under section 591.5(b) was erroneous, since the truck bore no certification of compliance. Furthermore, in spite of the letter from Kenworth of Canada stating that the truck was 'in compliance with U.S. federal laws' at the time of its delivery on August 31, 1981, it manifestly failed to comply with Standard No. 115 which, as of September 1, 1980, required trucks to have 17-character VINs. Ms Moniz believes that is also lacks an air brake system as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. Lacking a certification label, the truck should have been imported under section 591.5(f), which would have excused it from compliance with the 17-digit requirement. I shall shortly address a possible resolution of this dilemma. You have also asked whether this truck should have been imported through a 'registered importer'. You state that Taylor Vinson told you in a recent telephone conversation that 'as U.S. Customs had accepted the vehicle's compliance to U.S. Safety Standards and had not required a bond, a registered importer was not required.' This opinion was based on the assumption that the letter from Kenworth of Canada attesting to the truck's conformance with U.S. safety standards had accompanied the vehicle's importation, and was accepted by Customs (for the record, NHTSA currently permits importation of Canadian vehicles without bond or reference to a registered importer provided that a conformance letter from the manufacturer has been submitted for the agency's approval before importation). However, we see that our assumption was incorrect, Kenworth's letter is dated March 1991, and could not have accompanied the truck when it was imported in 1990. If a Canadian-manufactured vehicle is not accompanied by such a letter (or a permanently affixed label certifying compliance to U.S. standards), the vehicle must be entered under section 591.5(f) (Box 3) by a registered importer or by an importer who has a contract with a registered importer who will assure compliance with all the standards. Therefore, the truck in question was subject to the requirement that it be imported by a registered importer, or by a person who had a contract with a registered importer. Furthermore, the truck could not have been admitted into the United States unless the Administrator of this agency had determined that it was capable of conformance to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the Administrator had made no such determination. However, the effective date of section 591.5(f), the registered importer requirement, and the vehicle capability requirement was January 31, 1990, the date that the truck appears to have been imported into the United States. Both Customs personnel and brokers should have been aware of the new requirements that became effective on that date. However, as of that date (and for some months thereafter), no registered importers had been appointed, and no vehicle capability determinations had been made. Thus, even if the truck had been imported pursuant to section 591.5(f), this could not have been accomplished until much later in 1990 when the agency made a blanket capability determination concerning Canadian vehicles. Because of the passage of time and the apparent present location of the truck in Hawaii, the agency has no interest in requiring re-entry of this vehicle at this date to conform with regulations that went into effect the date that it was imported. As for the problem of the truck's registration, it is curious that Hawaii would wish to register as a l975 model-year truck a vehicle that was manufactured in 1981. Perhaps the State simply wishes to treat it as a vehicle that conforms to standards in effect in 1975, and does so by assigning it a model year reflecting a time before Standard No. 115 required a 17- character VIN, and before the effective date of Standard No. 121. In any event, Hawaii has recognized that S2 of Standard No. 115 permits the importation of a truck to which the 17-character VIN requirement of S4.2 does not apply. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Ms Joan Moniz 45623 Halekou Road Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744"; |
|
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.