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: aiam2983OpenMr. Lawrence B. Leiby, 295 Spring Street, Box 551, Shreve, OH 44676; Mr. Lawrence B. Leiby 295 Spring Street Box 551 Shreve OH 44676; Dear Mr. Leiby: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1979, to the Departmen asking about the legality of wiring the rear hazard warning signals so that they automatically flash when the gear shift level is placed in reverse.; We are able to give you guidance about applicable Federal law only. Th Federal requirements for new motor vehicles are set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.108). As you probably know, the hazard warning system and the turn signal system typically use the same lights. There is no provision in the standard which prohibits a manufacturer from wiring the rear hazard signals/turn lights so that they flash when the vehicle gear shift is in reverse. Please note, however, that the standard (S4.6(b)) requires the separate rear tail lamps to be steady burning. Thus, those lamps may not be wired so that they flash.; As for modification of used vehicles, contact the State in which th modified vehicle would be licensed and operated to determine if it has any applicable vehicle-in-use laws.; We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1706OpenMr. G. W. Overbay, Executive Vice President, Safety Development Systems, Second and Cole Streets, Haines, OR, 97833; Mr. G. W. Overbay Executive Vice President Safety Development Systems Second and Cole Streets Haines OR 97833; Dear Mr. Overbay: In your letter of November 13, 1974 you ask for confirmation of statement you attributed to Taylor Vinson of this office, from a recent telephone conversation, that 'as far as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned a green light is legal on the back of an auto.'; Our position is that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 doe not forbid installation of a green lamp as original equipment on the rear of a vehicle as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. This means that currently a State may allow a green rear light as optional equipment or forbid its use. Accordingly a green light on the rear of a vehicle is legal or illegal according to the laws of the State where the vehicle is registered.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0814OpenMr. James W. Callison, 1436 E. Ovid Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50316; Mr. James W. Callison 1436 E. Ovid Avenue Des Moines IA 50316; Dear Mr. Callison: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1972, and your note of Jul 31, asking whether the following statement may be placed on an invoice to relieve a final-stage manufacturer making the statement of his responsibilities under the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567):; >>>'Delivery of this unit was accepted by the undersigned with th understanding that the unit DOES NOT meet all requirements of the Nat'l. Traffic and Motor Vehicle safety Act. The undersigned assumes full responsibility for compliance.'<<<; In a conversation you had with Mike Peskoe of this office on July 31 you elaborated on your question. It appears that such a stamp might be used in either of two situations. First, a final-stage manufacturer might use the statement if he did not wish to certify the vehicle, attempting thereby to pass on the responsibility to the person to whom he delivers it, either a dealer or purchaser. In the second case, an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer has assumed the responsibility for conformity, and certification, pursuant to sections 567.5(c) or (d), and section 568.7, and the final-stage manufacturer is returning the vehicle to the party for whom he completed it, and wishes to make it clear that he is not responsible for certification.; A final-stage manufacturer whose responsibility for certification ha not been assumed by an intermediate or incomplete manufacturer cannot remove himself from this responsibility, or require another to assume it for him. The regulations require such a manufacturer to certify the completed vehicle, and his failure to do so can subject him to civil penalties and other sanctions. The use of a disclaimer such as the stamp you enclose would be of no legal effect, even if signed by the person receiving the vehicle.; In the situation where an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer ha assumed the certification responsibility, the use of such a stamp would be unnecessary. The final-stage manufacturer should obtain written assurance of that fact from the party assuming the responsibility, *before* beginning work on the vehicle. Also, the assumption of responsibility is reflected in special provisions regarding the certification label, in accordance with S 567.5(c) and (d) of the Certification regulations. It would be advisable for any statement concerning this arrangement to make reference to the applicable regulations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2829OpenMr. Carey R. DeMoss, McMullen & Porter, 12700 Park Central Place, Suite 1603, Dallas, TX 75251; Mr. Carey R. DeMoss McMullen & Porter 12700 Park Central Place Suite 1603 Dallas TX 75251; Dear Mr. DeMoss: This is in response to your letter of June 6, 1978, requesting a interpretation of the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. The question you raised was whether the owner of a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of 64,000 pounds is required under Federal regulations to issue an odometer disclosure statement to the purchaser of the truck. 49 CFR S 580.4, Disclosure of odometer information, requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to furnish to the transferee a written disclosure statement. 49 CFR S 580.5(a)(1), however, exempts a transferor of a vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 16,000 pounds from having to fulfill the requirements of S 580.4.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) i promulgating these regulations added this exemption section because buses and large trucks are routinely driven hundreds of thousands of miles, and their maintenance records, not their odometers, have traditionally been relied on by buyers as the principal guide to their condition. It is, therefore, the interpretation of the NHTSA that in the situation you describe in your letter, no disclosure statement was required to be issued under the Federal regulations.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4504OpenMr. Charley Erickson Charley's Off Road Center, Inc. 14190 E. Firestone Blvd. Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Mr. Charley Erickson Charley's Off Road Center Inc. 14190 E. Firestone Blvd. Santa Fe Springs CA 90670; "Dear Mr. Erickson: This responds to your letter asking whether Safet Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to the 'bikini sun shade,' an accessory you wish to sell for both new and used open-body type passenger vehicles. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. Generally speaking, items of motor vehicle equipment are not covered by Standard No. 302 and the bikini shade may be sold to vehicle owners for their installation in their own vehicles without regard to the product's conformance with the standard. However, as explained below, Federal law places limits on the installation of the bikini shade by some commercial businesses. Standard No. 302 establishes flammability requirements that must be met by new motor vehicles. The requirements apply to particular components within these vehicles, including shades. However, the requirements of the standard apply to a vehicle only until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. They do not apply to shades manufactured for aftermarket sale and installation in a a vehicle after its first purchase. It would not violate Standard No. 302 for you to sell aftermarket bikini sun shades that do not comply with the standard. However, the installation of the shades by certain parties other than vehicle owners could violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act (copy enclosed) specifies: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any 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 ...' The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. That element of design would be rendered inoperative in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installed a bikini sun shade in a new vehicle and thereby caused that vehicle to fail to comply with Standard No. 302. There would also be a rendering inoperative when one of these parties installed the shade in a used vehicle if the shade would have caused the vehicle, when new, to fail to comply with the standard. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108. You should be aware also of an additional aspect of the Act. All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the provisions set forth in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of equipment with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that the bikini shade had a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, you as the shade manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either repair the shade so that the defect is removed, or replace the shade with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not contain a defect. To summarize, there is a difference in the application of Standard No. 302 to vehicle equipment such as the bikini sun shade, depending on the identity of the person installing the shade in new and used motor vehicles. If the shade does not afford at least as good a level of flammability resistance as that specified by Standard No. 302, the shade cannot be installed in vehicles by any commercial business listed in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Shades that do not meet the standard's flammability resistance requirements may legally be installed in vehicles by the owners of those vehicles. However, NHTSA discourages owners from installing any item of equipment that would degrade the safety performance of their vehicles. To repeat, you as the shade manufacturer would still be obligated to recall and remedy shades that are determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, even if those shades were installed by vehicle owners themselves. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4011OpenMr. Rosario Costanzo, 28 Amelia Avenue, Livingston, NJ 07039; Mr. Rosario Costanzo 28 Amelia Avenue Livingston NJ 07039; Dear Mr. Costanzo: Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of m staff requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relevant to the importation of a wind deflector to be sold as an aftermarket accessory for specific motor vehicles. You also asked how such a deflector should be certified as meeting our standards. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which are applicable to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have issued Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which applies to wind deflectors for use in motor vehicles, regardless of their size. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference Standard ANS Z-26, 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' of the American National Standard Institute. A copy of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z-26 are enclosed for your reference.; Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various type of glazing and also regulates the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The various types of glazing are designated as 'Items' in the standard. Under the requirements of this standard, a wind deflector to be used on a passenger vehicle at locations requisite for driving visibility, such as the devices you wish to import, may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, Item 11, or Item 14 glazing materials. You said your deflectors are made of plexiglass. Generally, plexiglass would have to meet the requirements set for Item 4 glazing materials.; Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and markin requirements for glazing materials. The marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (i.e., those, such as Parimor, who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) that produce glazing designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle are set out in paragraph S6.2 of the standard. Please note that one of the certification requirements is that the manufacturer place its National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-assigned code mark on its products. Our records do not show any code mark assigned to Parimor. Parimor may request a number by writing to our Office of Vehicle Safety Standards at the address shown above.; Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, new motor vehicl equipment, such as wind deflectors, must comply with applicable safety standards prior to sale. The manufacture, sale, or installation of a deflector that does not conform to the standard, or the installation in a new vehicle in a location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, would be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109(a), anyone who sells motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Manufacturers and importers of motor vehicle equipment also hav responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under Sections 151 *et seq*., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. Again, Section 109(a) imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in motor vehicle equipment. A copy of the Vehicle Safety Act and an information sheet outlining the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers is enclosed for your reference.; Section 110(e) of the Vehicle Safety Act also affects Parimor, th foreign company manufacturing the wind deflector. That section requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as its agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions and requirements may be made. In order for that designation to be valid the following information must be submitted to our office:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authorit to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any more questions.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1213OpenMr. Francois Louis,Manager,Technical Standards Department,Renault, Inc.,100 Sylvan Avenue,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632; Mr. Francois Louis Manager Technical Standards Department Renault Inc. 100 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632; Dear Mr. Louis:#This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1973 asking for clarification of S5.2.1 and S6.9 of Standard No. 105a.#You interpret the parking brake test as allowing 'the vehicle to slide down the 30% incline (because of its weight) as long the wheels remain locked'. The parking brake must hold the vehicle on a 30% grade for 5 minutes. If vehicle weight distribution is such that the limit of traction is exceeded and the vehicle slides down the incline, no noncompliance would be indicated unless the parking brake failed to lock the wheels.#No skid number is specified for the 'clean, dry, smooth, portland cement concrete' incline surface specified in S6.9.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4441OpenMr. E. W. Dahl Vice President Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 443l6-000l; Mr. E. W. Dahl Vice President Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Akron Ohio 443l6-000l; "Dear Mr. Dahl: This responds to your letter concerning the tir marking requirements of Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether the standard would prohibit the following size designations from being marked on the tire: 385/65R22.5 REPLACES l5R22.5 425/65R22.5 REPLACES l6.5R22.5 445/65R22.5 REPLACES l8R22.5 As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. ll9. The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with 'the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1.' As noted by your letter, NHTSA recently provided an interpretation letter to Michelin, dated July 9, l987, concerning one of the exact sizes included in your request. The agency stated the following: In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as 'dual-size markings.' Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109, 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the 'tire size designation' to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size. The tire size marking at issue in the Michelin interpretation differs from your proposed marking in that it did not include the word 'replaces.' You stated the following: In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles. As indicated in our letter to Michelin, the only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. Any practice of using dual-size markings has the potential for confusing consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle, since consumers may erroneously believe that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of more than one tire size designation. For example, a consumer seeing a tire marking that size A replaces size B might erroneously believe that it is appropriate to replace size A with size B. You cited a l974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. l09 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR l0l62. I would note several things about the background and subsequent history of that NPRM. The NPRM indicated that despite the clear language in Standard No. l09 that each tire must be labeled with 'one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used,' NHTSA had previously taken the position in interpretation letters that replacement markings constituted an exception to this requirement. (Emphasis added.) The interpretation letters had not offered any basis for concluding that this exception existed. (See June 8, l97l letter to Mercedes-Benz, January l9, l972 letter to Kelly-Springfield, March 2, l973 letter to Samperit.) The NPRM sought to 'clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. l09, to allow, subject to certain conditions, the labeling of replacement tire size designations.' However, the NPRM was not adopted as a final rule. We also note that while the l97l-72 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, l980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. l09 prohibited replacement markings. NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. ll9 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, l987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. ll9 prohibits a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if the word 'replaces' is used. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3384OpenMr. Charlton C. Davis, Davis Trailer Mfg. Co., Rte 1, Highway 78E, Loganville, Georgia 30249; Mr. Charlton C. Davis Davis Trailer Mfg. Co. Rte 1 Highway 78E Loganville Georgia 30249; Dear Mr. Davis: This responds to your November &, 1980, letter to Mr. Kratzke of m staff, in which you requested information concerning the legality of using welded mobile home axles and mobile home tires on trailers.; We have no regulations concerning the axles which may be used o trailers. However, the use if mobile home tires on new trailers would violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR S571.120). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of this standard. Section S5.1 of the standard requires all new trailers equipped with tires for highway service to use tires that comply with either Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Use on Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, or Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*, tires which have the label 'For Mobile Home Use Only' have been expressly exempted from the performance requirements of Standard No. 119. Because of the exemption, these tires may only be used on mobile homes. Therefore, the use of these tires on new trailers would render the trailers in violation of Standard No. 120. A manufacturer using these tires on a new trailer would face a fine of up to $1,000 for each mobile home tire used, pursuant to the provision of section 108 and 109 of the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 11398). If you are aware of any such violations, the agency would appreciate any information you could supply.; As I Have stated above, we have no regulations specifying performanc requirements for the axles on trailers. If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1643OpenMr. Jack M. Dubard, Dubard & Vail, P.O. Box 38, Booneville, MS 38829; Mr. Jack M. Dubard Dubard & Vail P.O. Box 38 Booneville MS 38829; Dear Mr. Dubard:This responds to your October 11, 1974, letter (JAH:nh asking whether a truck body manufactured in part before and in part after the effective date of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, must conform to the requirements of that standard. Standard No. 121 becomes effective for trailers on January 1, 1975, and for trucks and buses on March 1, 1975.; Standard No. 121 applies to air brake-equipped trucks, buses, an trailers, but not to truck bodies, which we consider to be items of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, if your client only makes and sells truck bodies, his products are not subject to Standard No. 121.; If your client combines a chassis- cab with a truck body, he may i many cases be manufacturing a new motor vehicle, and as such, be responsible for compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I have enclosed 49 CFR Parts 567, *Certification*, and 568, *Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages*, which set out the certification responsibilities of persons who manufacture vehicles in stages.; Section 568.8 states that a 'final-stage manufacturer' (frequently thi will be one who installs a truck body on a chassis cab) must certify the vehicle as conforming with all standards effective as of the date of manufacture of the 'incomplete vehicle,' the date of final completion, or any date between those two dates. The manufacturer makes this certification based both on documentation furnished by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer under S 568.4, and on the changes he has made to complete the vehicle.; Therefore, if your client completes a truck by adding a truck body t it, he must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable standards as of a date chosen by him within the specified period. For example, a vehicle completed by the addition of a body on March 15, 1975, which used a chassis-cab manufactured on February 1, 1975, could be certified as complying with all standards as of February 1, 1975. In this case, the vehicle would not be subject to Standard No. 121.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting 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.