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: aiam3537OpenMr. John B. White, Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept., Michelin Tire Corporation, One Marcus Avenue, Lake Success, NY 11042; Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept. Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success NY 11042; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*. Specifically, you asked whether Michelin could use two different size codes in the tire identification number to identify tires of the same size. You asserted that this assignment of differing size codes would not impair Michelin's ability to conduct a recall of tires of that size, should such a recall be necessary. As long as Michelin maintains accurate records of the size codes assigned to the various tire sizes, it would be permissible to assign more than one size code to each tire size.; At the outset, it is important to note that the size code in the tir identification number is not the means used by the consumer to determine the size of the tires on his or her car. Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 and section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specify that the tire size designation must be labeled on both sidewalls. The size designation is the exact size and is not the same as the size code. To satisfy this requirement, Michelin should label all tires of the same size with just one size designation.; For purposes of record keeping, paragraph S574.5 requires that eac tire be labeled with a tire identification number, and that this identification number contain four groupings of information. The first grouping is a symbol identifying the manufacturer (the symbol is assigned by this agency), the second grouping is a symbol identifying the tire size, the third grouping is an optional symbol containing further information on the specific characteristics of the tire, and the fourth grouping is a symbol identifying the week the tire was manufactured.; There is no requirement in Part 574 which prohibits more than one tir size code from being assigned to each tire size. Additionally, the purpose of tire identification number requirements in Part 574 is to facilitate effective recalls of the tires from the public if those tires are found not to comply with an applicable safety standard or if the tires contain a safety-related defect. For tire manufacturers such as Michelin, this purpose is served by the requirement that the manufacturer keep records of the names and addresses of the initial purchaser of each of its tires for at least three years, as specified in paragraph S574.7. As you noted in your letter, this purpose would not be defeated if a manufacturer assigns more than one size code to a given tire size. Accordingly, a manufacturer may assign more than one size code in the tire identification number for a given tire size, since this is not specifically prohibited by Part 574 and does not conflict with the purpose of that Part.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4358OpenMr. Allan Fogel, New York City Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Management Audit, 161 William Street, New York, NY 10038; Mr. Allan Fogel New York City Office of the Comptroller Bureau of Management Audit 161 William Street New York NY 10038; Dear Mr. Fogel: This responds to your March 6, 1987 letter to my office asking whethe we consider a 'Mobile Instructional Unit' (MIU) to be a 'school bus.' You wish to know whether Federal school bus safety standards apply to such a vehicle. You have asked, in addition, whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on hydraulic brakes applies to an MIU. It is my opinion that the MIU is not a school bus under the applicable Federal law and regulations and is thus not required to meet the school bus standards. If the MIU is equipped with air brakes, it is not subject to the hydraulic brake standard.; The background information you provide explains that the MIU is self-propelled unit built on a new or used school bus chassis. MIU's are 'completely self-contained with all furnishings, (including desks for 10 pupils).' When an MIU is built with a used chassis, the Board of Educator's contractor guts the interior of the bus and constructs a classroom facility within the shell. According to your letter, the MIU's are never used to transport pupils: 'The empty vehicle is driven to the site by the contractor where it is parked and then pupils and teacher enter the vehicle. At the end of the day after instruction, the pupils and teacher disembark and the empty vehicle is driven back to the garage by the contractor.'; Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381- 1431) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. We have issued several standards which apply to school buses, a class of vehicle defined by the Act as 'likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary or secondary school students to or from schools or events related to such schools.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)) The bus from which an MIU is built would have had to comply with the school bus standards at the time of its original manufacture. As long as a bus continues to be used as a school bus, the law does not allow a contractor to modify it in a way that takes it out of compliance with the school bus standards. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) However, if the bus is modified so that it will no longer be used to transport students, it ceases to be a school bus and does not have to continue to meet the standards applicable exclusively to school buses. In the case of the MIU, it seems clear that the vehicle would no longer be suitable for transporting students to or from school. The MIU would thus not have to meet the school bus standards.; Although the school bus standards would not apply, the MIU woul continue to be a motor vehicle and would continue to be subject to other standards under the Act. You have asked about the applicability of Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brakes*. Since the buses from which the MIU's are built were originally equipped with air brakes, the hydraulic brake standards would not apply to them. However, these is a separate standard for air braked vehicles, Standard No. 121, a copy of which I have enclosed. If the contractor built an MIU in a way that impaired the air brake system, he or she might be in violation of the Act. The contractor would also have to ensure that several other regulated safety systems -- the windshield wipers, the driver's safety belt, etc. -- remained operative.; MIU's built with new chassis also fall outside the ambit of the Safet Act's school bus definition. Since they are not school buses under Federal law, the MIU's are not subject to our school bus safety standards. However, the MIU's would be subject to other standards, including Standard No. 121 for air braked vehicles. The contractor should be able to inform you of the compliance of the vehicles with applicable Federal safety standards.; Since you may be interested in reviewing the standards which apply t vehicles such as the MIU, I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if you hav further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3167OpenMr. John F. Croonquist, President, Alternative Automotive, Inc., 999 N. Pacific Street, 33-D, Oceanside, CA 92054; Mr. John F. Croonquist President Alternative Automotive Inc. 999 N. Pacific Street 33-D Oceanside CA 92054; Dear Mr. Croonquist: This responds to your November 9, 1979, letter asking whether a vehicl that you plan to produce would be classified as a truck for purposes of applying the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; In your letter, you state that your vehicle looks somewhat like a Jeep You state further that it is constructed on a Volkswagen truck chassis, carries two passengers, and is designed to transport property. As you know, the agency defines truck to be a vehicle that is designed primarily to transport property or speciality (sic) equipment. Since the vehicle that you plan to manufacture appears to be designed for the transportation of property and since it is constructed on a truck chassis, the agency concludes that it would be a truck for the purposes of applying the safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5119OpenMr. Bill Dobberteen Product Launch Engineer Prince Corporation 35 Madison - Beechwood Holland, MI 49423; Mr. Bill Dobberteen Product Launch Engineer Prince Corporation 35 Madison - Beechwood Holland MI 49423; "Dear Mr. Dobberteen: This responds to your letter that requeste information about how the regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. According to your letter, your company is developing an overhead storage compartment bin to be secured to the interior roof of a utility vehicle behind its rear seat. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that you anticipate that this product will typically be installed in motor vehicles prior to their first consumer purchase. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering a rear overhead storage bin. However, it is possible that the installation of such a product could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards. All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your storage bin is installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if your storage bin is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards. We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have responsibilities under the Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151, et seq., of the Safety Act, such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge. In order to determine how installation of your storage bin could affect the compliance of a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to Standard No. 216 which addresses roof crush resistance and Standard No. 302 which addresses the flammability of interior materials. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2326OpenMr. Leroy E. Mueller, President, Wisconsin Trailer Company, Inc., Manufacturers Machinery Hauling Trailers, Richfield, WI 53076; Mr. Leroy E. Mueller President Wisconsin Trailer Company Inc. Manufacturers Machinery Hauling Trailers Richfield WI 53076; Dear Mr. Mueller: This responds to your June 2, 1976, request for written notificatio that the 'heavy hauler trailer' exclusion of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, has been extended to September 1, 1977. You also request confirmation that manufacturers may assign multiple gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) in fulfilling their responsibilities under Part 567, *Certification* (49 CFR Part 567) of our regulations, but that only ratings unqualified by speed restrictions will be permitted after September or October 1976.; I have enclosed a copy of the amendment that extends the 'heavy hauler exclusion of Standard No. 121 from September 1, 1976, to September 1, 1977. The date change in that amendment has been circled.; The NHTSA requires that the GVWR and GAWR placed on the certificatio plate in accordance with Part 567 be unqualified by speed restriction and be based on the 60- mph capabilities assigned to the tire and rims by the United States Tire and Rim Association. Other GVWR and GAWR values may be assigned by the manufacturer, but they must be listed after the information required on the Part 567 certification plate, and they do not form the basis of a vehicle's compliance with safety standards such as Standard No. 121.; In our November 20, 1975, letter to you on the same subject, we note that we were considering a revision of the definition of GVWR and GAWR to conform to this interpretation. That proposal has been issued and a copy is enclosed for your information.; The proposal has not been made final as of the date of this letter Please note that multiple ratings would continue to be permitted under the proposal, so long as the restricted rating appears first on the certification plate.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5549OpenMs. Mary J Gazich Owner - Clever Kids, Inc. 4091 Vermont Avenue Eagan, MN 55123; Ms. Mary J Gazich Owner - Clever Kids Inc. 4091 Vermont Avenue Eagan MN 55123; "Dear Ms. Gazich: This responds to your letter asking about how thi agency's regulations might apply to your product, the 'Smart Rider.' In your letter, you described the Smart Rider as a 'new automobile accessory for children.' It is a vinyl seat back protector that slips over one or both of the front seats and secured, we assume, with the two 3/4 inch elastic bands. The answer to your question is that there are no standards that apply directly to the Smart Rider, but there are Federal requirements that may affect it. I summarize below the relevant safety standards and laws you should consider. As you recognized in your letter, the Smart Rider is an accessory, a type of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. NHTSA has not issued any standards for an accessory such as the Smart Rider. For that reason, you should not place any label on your packaging to the effect that it meets Federal standards. Although no standards apply directly to the Smart Rider, its installation may affect vehicle compliance with certain safety standards. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that requires, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with that standard. If the vinyl of the Smart Rider is stiff enough, it might distribute the impact of the occupant's head over a larger area of the seat back than the vehicle manufacturer intended. As a result, the foam in the seat back might not compress as deeply as the manufacturer intended, and the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how stiff the vinyl is, and this may not be a problem, but it is something of which you should be aware. Another standard that you might want to consider is Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. That standard requires that seat backs not burn or transmit a flame front across their surface at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. If the Smart Rider were installed as part of a new vehicle, it would be considered part of the seat back. Which legal requirements apply depend to some extent on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the Smart Rider installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standards No. 201 and 302. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from 'knowingly mak ing inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .' For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the Smart Rider were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the installer to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'make inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, our standards would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Smart Rider in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether the Smart Rider would be permitted. I want to emphasize that NHTSA has not made a determination regarding the safety of the Smart Rider. NHTSA has not done any testing of your product. I am merely informing you of the applicable law and identifying a few potential problem areas for your consideration. I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2776OpenMr. R. M. Premo, Vehicle Planning and Development Center, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 3555 St. Johns Road, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. R. M. Premo Vehicle Planning and Development Center Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Premo: This confirms the discussion held among you, Mr. Roger Tilton, Mr. Gu Hunter, and Mr. Martin Paliokas on February 14, 1978, concerning the applicability of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*, and Standard No. 113, *Hood Latch Systems*, to your vehicles.; In your first question, you asked whether the joint connecting a piec of metal that is attached to a body pillar and which is covered by the exterior body panels is a joint regulated by Standard No. 221. The standard regulates a 'body panel joint' which is defined as 'the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component,....' 'Body panel' is defined as 'a body component...used to enclose the bus' occupant space.' The piece of metal to which you refer becomes a part of the pillar and serves no purpose in enclosing occupant space. Therefore, the joint connecting these two body members is not a body panel joint and is not subject to the standard.; In your second question, you ask whether a hood latch system ca utilize two pin-type latches, one on each side of the hood, to comply with Standard No. 113. The standard specifically permits the use of two hood latch systems. The use of these two distinct pins would appear to comply with the requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3864OpenMr. Ken Pomer, President, Premier Crown Corp., P.O. Box 30576, Umstead Industrial Park, Raleigh, NC 27622; Mr. Ken Pomer President Premier Crown Corp. P.O. Box 30576 Umstead Industrial Park Raleigh NC 27622; Dear Mr. Pomer: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, as it relates to one of the Premier helmet models. You enclosed a photograph of the helmet which shows that the helmet has a visor in the front. You state that the visor is an integral part of the polycarbonate helmet shell and ask if this helmet complies with the standard.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*. (as amended) (the Act). Certification that an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a motorcycle helmet, complies with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is the obligation of the manufacturer under section 114 of the Act. For this reason, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not state in advance whether a helmet complies with the standard. The agency's determination of compliance occurs only in the context of an enforcement action.; This office has reviewed the photograph of the Premier helmet regardin the visor and notes that paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 218 requires that: 'The brow opening of the helmet shall be at least 1 inch above all points in the basic plane that are within the angles of peripheral vision (see Figure 3).' The intent of this provision is to give the helmet user an unobstructed view. Therefore, if the lowest point, or the tip, of the visor is at least one inch above the basic plane, as shown in Figure 2 of the standard, the helmet should meet the requirements of this provision.; A copy of 49 CFR Part 556, *Exemption for Inconsequential Defect o Noncompliance, is enclosed for your information, if you decide to petition the NHTSA regarding the inconsequentiality of a noncompliance.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1859OpenMr. Cleatis Mitchell, State Representative, District No. 52, House of Representatives, Salem, OR 97310; Mr. Cleatis Mitchell State Representative District No. 52 House of Representatives Salem OR 97310; Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is in response to your letter of March 3, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from Mr. Jim Lee Martin, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal Bumper Standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1970 (sic) model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two ageny-sponsore (sic) studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Martin has directed his comments to what he believes to be proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face (plastic) systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4071OpenMr. D. Black, Director, U.S. Engineering, Alfa Romeo, Inc., 250 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. D. Black Director U.S. Engineering Alfa Romeo Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associat Administrator for Rulemaking, requesting an interpretation of Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. You stated that you plan to begin production of a 1987 carline in March 1986. This particular carline has been selected as one that will be subject to the requirements of Part 541. However, Part 541 does not become effective until April 24, 1986. You stated your belief that the introduction of the 1987 vehicles in that carline before the effective date of Part 541 means that none of the 1987 vehicles in that carline will be required to comply with Part 541, but that the 1988 vehicles would be required to comply. Your belief is essentially correct.; As you noted, the effective date for Part 541 is April 24, 1986. Thi effective date means that Part 541 applies to all selected carlines beginning with the 1987 model year. However, the legislative history for Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 *et seq*.), which Title requires that Part 541 be promulgated, expressly states: 'The theft prevention standard cannot apply to a car in the middle of the model year.' H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 11 (1984).; For the purposes of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, NHTSA believe that the model year for a carline begins on the day on which a vehicle in that carline is introduced into commerce in the United States. In your case, since these cares are manufactured outside of the United States, the start of production does *not* constitute an introduction into commerce in the United States. The cars would be considered to be introduced into commerce in the United States when the first vehicle is *imported* into the customs territory of the United States.; Assuming that one of the 1987 vehicles in this carline is imported, an thus introduced into commerce, before April 24, 1986 (the effective date for Part 541), the 1987 model year for that carline would have begun prior to the effective date of the theft prevention standard. Obviously, the requirements of any standard do not apply before the effective date. Given the clear expression of Congressional intent that this theft prevention standard cannot apply to a carline in the middle of its model year, NHTSA concludes that a 1987 model year version of a carline introduced into commerce before the effective date of the theft prevention standard is not subject to the requirements of the theft prevention standard for the 1987 model year. It would, of course, be subject to the requirements for the 1988 model year.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.