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 |
|---|---|
ID: aiam2191OpenHonorable Robin Beard, Member of Congress, 710 North Garden Street, Columbia, TN 38401; Honorable Robin Beard Member of Congress 710 North Garden Street Columbia TN 38401; Dear Mr. Beard: This responds to your January 29, 1976, question whether an owner of vehicle manufactured to comply with Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems, may legally disconnect portions of the brake system after a vehicle has been delivered for use in his business.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of safety components by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses. Thus, there is no prohibition on disconnection by an owner of his own vehicle's system under the Traffic Safety Act. However, State statutes, or the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that owners not disconnect safety devices without consultation with the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safest configuration of the vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4075OpenMr. R. O. Sornson, Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis, Chrysler Corporation, P.O. Box 1919, Detroit, MI 48288; Mr. R. O. Sornson Director Regulatory Research and Analysis Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit MI 48288; Dear Mr. Sornson: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking this agenc to 'delay' its final selection of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and Dodge Lancer car lines as 'high theft lines' for the purposes of 49 CFR Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. Section 603(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3)) requires that all selections of lines initially introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541 (April 24, 1986) as high theft lines must be made final within one year after enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act. Neither that statutory requirement nor the implementing regulations adopted by this agency contain any provision that would allow this agency to 'delay' its final selection. Accordingly, your request is denied.; In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3) and 49 CFR Part 542, th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) informed Chrysler of its final selection of the LeBaron and Lancer lines as high theft lines by letter dated October 25, 1985. That letter was a final agency action on this question, again in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3). There is no provision in the law allowing us to 'delay' final selections, so there is no basis for entertaining your request.; You stated in your letter that the best test of whether a car lin should be treated as a high theft line is its actual theft rate. We agree with that statement. However, it does not address the issue of how to treat car lines, such as your LeBaron GTS and Lancer, for which sufficient theft data are not available.; This agency has been told repeatedly by law enforcement groups that th theft rate for a car in its initial year of introduction is almost always lower than its theft rate in subsequent model years. This is because the vehicle population is relatively small, and experiences a lesser exposure to accidents and other damage than do lines which have been available for more than one model year. Accordingly, lines are less desirable targets for chop shops in their first year of introduction than they become in subsequent model years. Because of this phenomenon, NHTSA did not believe it appropriate to make selections of high theft lines based solely or primarily on preliminary theft data.; Under section 603(a)(3) of the Cost Savings Act, the agency wa required to select not later than October 25, 1985, (one year after the date of the enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act) the high theft lines from among all lines introduced between January 1, 1983, and the effective date of the theft prevention standard. To meet this statutory deadline, NHTSA published a proposal to establish a new Part 542, *Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard*, at 50 FR 25603, June 20, 1985. Section 542.1 set forth six proposed criteria to be used in selecting likely high theft lines from lines such as the LeBaron GTS and the Lancer, which were introduced after January 1, 1983, and before the effective date of the theft prevention standard. These criteria were:; >>>1. Retail price of the vehicle line. 2. Vehicle image or marketing strategy. 3. Vehicle lines with which the new line is intended to compete, an the theft rates of such lines.; 4. Vehicle line(s), if any, which the new line is intended to replace and the theft rate(s) of such line(s).; 5. Presence or absence of any new theft prevention devices or systems. 6. Preliminary theft rate for the line, if it can be determined on th basis of currently available data.<<<; Chrysler's comments on the proposal stated, 'We generally concur wit the proposed procedures. In our opinion the information which the NHTSA is requesting from manufacturers in order to establish anticipated theft rates for their various car lines appears reasonable.' General Motors commented that the agency should adopt some weighting of these criteria, so that the process of selecting a line as a high theft line would be more objectively defined. General Motors specifically commented, 'Probably the only criterion which could be used with any degree of certainty in selecting vehicles ... is theft data.' In the final rule establishing Part 542, NHTSA responded to this comment as follows:; >>>As noted in the NPRM, these judgments of likely high theft lines ar partially subjective judgments. NHTSA concurs with GM's statement that neither price nor vehicle image alone can be strictly correlated to vehicle theft rates. However, NHTSA believes that the six criteria set forth in Appendix C considered together do form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. 50 FR 34831, at 34834, August 28, 1985.<<<; NHTSA continues to believe that the six criteria form an objectiv basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. When these criteria were applied to the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines, we concluded that criterion 1 did not point to the cars being either high or low theft, criteria 2 and 3 indicated the lines would be high theft, criteria 4 and 5 were not applicable, and criterion 6 indicated the cars would be low theft. On balance, then, the criteria indicated the lines will be high theft lines.; Accordingly, even if there were some authority to allow us to delay th October 25 final selections, we would still conclude that the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines are likely high theft lines.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1627OpenMr. Edgar E. Lungren, Jr., General Attorney, Trailmobile, 200 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60604; Mr. Edgar E. Lungren Jr. General Attorney Trailmobile 200 South Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60604; Dear Mr. Lungren: This responds to Trailmobile's September 27, 1974 request for determination that the combination of a new trailer main body structure (underframe, floors, side walls, and nose structure) with the rear doors, lighting components, running gear, and landing gear of a used trailer, would not constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You request this determination because motor vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1975, must comply with Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*.; Re-use of components from an existing vehicle in the construction o another vehicle may or may not result in the manufacture of a new vehicle. The NHTSA has established that the addition of new components (such as a truck body) to the chassis of a used vehicle does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. Conversely, the addition of used components to a new chassis which has never been certified in a vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to the safety standards in effect for that vehicle class on the date of manufacture. This criterion has been relied on in the area of chassis-cab multistage manufacture.; Since Trailmobile plans to utilize a new underframe as well as a ne upper structure in the construction of these trailers, we consider that the operation you describe constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle for purposes of application of the safety standards, and Standard No. 121 applies to those trailers manufactured by this process on or after January 1, 1975. To conclude otherwise would mean that re- use of running gear assemblies and rear doors could indefinitely exempt a vehicle from upgraded and newly-issued safety standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2908OpenMr. Dick Palmer, Palmer Machine Works, Old Round House Road, Amory, Mississippi, 38821; Mr. Dick Palmer Palmer Machine Works Old Round House Road Amory Mississippi 38821; Dear Mr. Palmer: This is in response to your letter of November 10, 1978, concernin Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 115, *Vehicle identification number*, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.; Unfortunately, we do not have a simplified version of the standar which applies only to trailers. We have also modified the standard somewhat since the August 1978 version you referred to in your letter. I have attached a copy of the modification as well as a proposed further modification. I realize this is a complex standard, and, therefore, offer the following comments:; 1. Since you produce less than 500 vehicles per year, characters 1, 2 3, 11, 12 and 13 of the VIN will represent your manufacturer identifier. The date by which your manufacturer identifier must be submitted to the NHTSA has been changed to September 1, 1979. It is our understanding that the Society of Automotive Engineers will be willing to help you determine your manufacturer identifier. You should contact: Mr. Leo Ziegler, Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096, (412) 776-4841.; 2. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th characters of the VIN represen descriptive information about your vehicles. In the case of trailers, the type of trailer, series, body type, length and axle configuration must be represented. Since your model number can be associated with all these characteristics, you may want to incorporate it into the vehicle descriptor section.; 3. The 9th character of the VIN represents the model year of th vehicle, and should be determined from Table II which appears in the standard.; 4. The 10th character of the VIN represents the plant of manufacture Since your firm has only one plant, you may choose any character you desire except one specifically precluded by the standard.; 5. Since your firm manufacturers less than 500 vehicles each year, th last three characters of the VIN represent the number that is sequentially assigned to a vehicle in your production process.; 6. The check digit which immediately precedes the third character o the VIN is determined by the mathematical operation described in section S5 of the standard. Since most characters in your VIN will be standardized, the check digit should be fairly easy to determine.; Please contact me if you have any further questions. Any trad associations to which you belong should also be helpful in establishing your VIN procedures.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0935OpenMr. J. Patrick Roney, Hatch Imports, Inc., P. O. Box 413, Van Nuys, CA 91408; Mr. J. Patrick Roney Hatch Imports Inc. P. O. Box 413 Van Nuys CA 91408; Dear Mr. Roney: This is in reply to your letter of December 5, 1972, concernin approvals required by the Federal Government regarding the sale of safety glazing materials.; No approval by the Federal Government is required. Certification o conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 and Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; If you are not aware of State approvals, you may want to contact Mr Armand Cardarelli, of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Suite 500, 1828 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; |
|
ID: aiam4425OpenMr. John S. Crockenberg 156 Holland Road Ormond Beach, FL 32074; Mr. John S. Crockenberg 156 Holland Road Ormond Beach FL 32074; "Dear Mr. Crockenberg: This is in response to your letter of Februar 26, 1988, concerning antiglare plexiglass shields. I regret the delay in our response. You asked whether Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to your product, a 4' x 6' x 1/8' parallelogram with rounded corners made of transparent bronze plexiglass with an attached 1/2' diameter suction cup. You noted that this device, which adheres to the interior of automobile windows, deflects obstructive sunglare where conventional sun visors cannot be placed. You also asked what other agency's regulations you should be aware of before you begin to manufacture and market this device, if none of our standards apply. You are correct in assuming that Standard No. 103 and Standard No. 111 do not apply to your product. The only Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is relevant to your product is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. S2 states that one purpose of this standard is to 'ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility.' S1 and S3 note that Standard No. 205 applies to glazing materials in both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I am enclosing an agency 'fact sheet,' which concerns the tinting of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I also am enclosing two previous NHTSA interpretation letters, which concern products similar to your antiglare shield. These letters to Susan House on December 20, 1985 and to Jeffrey Richard on April 16, 1985 explain the effect of Standard No. 205 on a manufacturer of such a product. In response to your second question, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This identifies other agencies whose regulations might be applicable to a new manufacturer's products. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0466OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Chairman, Defect Report Committee, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Chairman Defect Report Committee Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of September 13, 1971, concerning th Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You request a ruling concerning S573.7, which requires manufacturers to submit a copy 'of all notices, bulletins, and other communications, other than those required to be submitted under S573.4(c)(8), sent to more than one dealer or purchaser of his vehicles regarding any defect, whether or not safety related, in such vehicles.'; You ask whether this requirement includes letters that your compan writes that are of a personal nature concerning possible defects, when the letters deal with more than one item, but have at least one item in common. If these letters are included in the requirement, you request that we specify a time span for which you would be responsible.; The intent of S573.7 is for manufacturers to provide the NHTSA wit certain information each time a defect other than a defect under S573.4(c)(8) is found to exist in more than one vehicle. Thus, assuming the defect is not one on which information has been submitted pursuant to S573.4(c)(8), you may satisfy the requirement of S573.7 by submitting a copy of any one letter that pertains to a defect found in more than one vehicle, as long as the letter is appropriately marked so that we can determine for which defect it is being submitted.; The regulation does not limit the time span for which manufacturers ar responsible, and manufacturers must be sufficiently familiar with their repair programs so that if a defect appears at two or more points in time, the necessary information can be submitted.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4976OpenCharles W. O'Connor, Esq. Assistant Secretary Echlin Inc. 100 Double Beach Road Branford, CT 06405; Charles W. O'Connor Esq. Assistant Secretary Echlin Inc. 100 Double Beach Road Branford CT 06405; Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your letters of December 26, 1991 and February 25, 1992, with respect to various interpretive letters of this office on the Commander and Voyager Electronic Brake Control ('Control'). The Control is manufactured by your subsidiary, Tekonsha Engineering Company. For the reasons enunciated in your December letter, you have asked us to 'rule that all three of your letters i.e., the November 22 and May 23, 1991, letters to Mr. Lewandoski and your letter of September 10, 1990, to Mr. Henneberger are all void from the beginning.' We are replying on the basis of information presented by representatives of Tekonsha, Mr. Henneberger, and yourself in a meeting with representatives of NHTSA on March 18, 1992, rather than on the basis of your December letter. This meeting brought forth facts, previously unknown to us, and which did not, therefore, form a basis for the three previous letters on this subject mentioned above. We now understand that the Control is motor vehicle equipment which is added to the towing vehicle by the seller of the towed vehicle, at a time subsequent to the first purchase of the towed vehicle for purposes other than resale. The Control has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towing vehicle. The Control in ordinary operation has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towed vehicle. When hand-activated in an emergency mode, the Control applies a modulated pressure to the service brakes of the towed vehicle, without activating the stop lamps on the towed vehicle. It is theoretically possible that the Control will never be operated during the life of the towing vehicle. It is our opinion that the applicable Federal law in this situation is that which pertains to the operation of vehicles in use, rather than the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles before their first purchase for purpose other than resale. This means that we do not view this as a question of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statues by Standard No. 108. Under the statues and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397 (a) (2) (A). This Section states in pertinent part: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' The question therefore is whether the installation of the Control on the towing vehicle by the dealer of the towed vehicle renders the stop lamps (installed on the towed vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 108) inoperative in whole or in part within the meaning of Section 1397 (a) (2) (A). We note that the installation per se of the Control has no effect of any sort n the stop lamps of the vehicle on which it is installed, or on the vehicle that is towed. Therefore, the dealer has not rendered any stop lamps inoperative by the act of installing the Control. It is the use of the Control that may have an effect upon the stop lamps. In ordinary use, the Control has no effect upon the stop lamps of either the towing or the towed vehicle. However, when the hand control of the device is activated in the emergency mode on the towing vehicle, to slow the swaying of the towed vehicle through application of the only set of brakes on the towed vehicle (its service brakes), the stop lamps will not be activated. In the conscious act of activating the emergency feature, the operator has knowingly rendered the stop lamps on the towed vehicle inoperative for the duration of such activation (unless or until the operator applies the service brake of the towing vehicle). However, Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to operators, thus the activation and use of the Control is not prohibited under our Statues and regulations. On the basis of the facts presented in the meeting on March 18, it now appears that the sale of the Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc:Larry Henneberger Bill Lewandoski California Highway Patrol; |
|
ID: aiam0036OpenMr. David A. Phelps, Jr., Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. David A. Phelps Jr. Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps: This is in response to your letter of November 10, 1967, in which yo requested a clarification of the use of the term 'combined optically' as used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Sections S3.3(c) and S3.4.4.3.; S3.3(c)>>>*Lamp Combinations and Equipment Combinations*. Two or mor lamps, reflective devices, and items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are met, except that --; (c) No clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp o identification lamp.<<<; This means that no clearance lamp my be combined to use a lense (sic that is common to any other lamp such as a taillamp or identification lamp. The clearance lamp shall have a unique lense (sic).; S3.4.4.3>>>Stoplamps that are combined optically with turn signal lamp need not be operable when the combination is in use as a turn signal or as a vehicular hazard warning signal.<<<; This means that stoplamps that have a lense (sic) that is common wit the turn signal lamps do not have to be operable when the combined stoplamp and turn signal lamp is used primarily as a turn signal or as a hazard warning signal. Stoplamps need not be operable when the combined stoplamp and turn signal lamp unit is used as a hazard warning or turn signal indicator.; We trust these comments will be of assistance in clarifying you problems.; Sincerely, Andrew K. Ness, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis; |
|
ID: aiam5234OpenMr. Scott R. Dennison Vice-President - Production Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 South 108th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214; Mr. Scott R. Dennison Vice-President - Production Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 South 108th Street Milwaukee WI 53214; "Dear Mr. Dennison: Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1993 clarifying your FAX of March 12 to which I responded on April 19. We appreciate your goal of helping people comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and those of EPA. We can well understand why, as you put it, 'at times I do not feel I have the right answers for some of these manufacturers.' The regulation of kit cars and vehicles combining old and new parts is a complicated subject, and our opinions usually depend upon the specific facts of individual cases with the result that one may differ in degree from another. Because these are legal opinions, the Office of Chief Counsel is the proper Office within NHTSA to address questions of this nature, rather than the agency's Enforcement office. We are sorry that some of your inquirers 'are afraid to call NHTSA for fear of reprisal.' By this, I think you mean that a call from a small manufacturer might cause NHTSA to initiate enforcement action concerning nonconformance with the FMVSS or agency regulations. The potential of an enforcement action should be sufficient to encourage those engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles to discern their responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to comply with them. We are willing to assist manufacturers in interpreting the Act and regulations. If they do not wish to write or call us, they can review our interpretation letters which are available to the public in NHTSA's Technical Reference Division. Also, they can consult a private attorney. You enclosed a copy of the 'EPA Kit Car Policy' which we have reviewed, comparing it with NHTSA policy. In most respects, the two policies are congruent. Paragraph 1 of the EPA document fairly expresses NHTSA policy, fully assembled kit cars, and complete kit car packages are 'motor vehicles' under the Act, required to be certified by the manufacturer or kit supplier. If they are not certified, they must be imported by a NHTSA-registered importer (the counterpart to EPA's Independent Commercial Importer), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to certify the kit car (an allowance that we understand does not exist under EPA regulations). I shall return to Paragraph 2 later. Paragraph 3 differs from NHTSA policy, although automotive bodies are not 'motor vehicles' under either EPA or NHTSA's definitions, they are 'motor vehicle equipment' for purposes of NHTSA's jurisdiction. Paragraph 4 essentially states NHTSA policy, kit car body/chassis combinations may be imported as automotive equipment and are subject to NHTSA's regulations. Similarly, any attempt to circumvent the Act or import regulations may be viewed as a violation subject to enforcement. However, NHTSA will also regard as a 'manufacturer' any person importing kits or kit cars for resale, as well as the actual fabricator or assembler of a kit. Paragraph 2 reflects the fact that EPA regulates only engines and emission- related components. A vehicle 'will be considered to be a rebuilt vehicle of a previously certified configuration and will be considered to be covered by that configuration's original EPA certification of conformity' if the engine and all emission-related components and settings conform to those of the previously certified configuration, and if the weight of the completed kit vehicle is not more than 500 pounds greater than that of the originally certified configuration. Under EPA policy, a 'rebuilt vehicle' could be a motor vehicle all of whose parts were new and unused except for its engine and engine-related components. NHTSA has no definition of 'rebuilt vehicle' which would permit a similar interpretation, and while a vehicle as I have described could be covered by the previously existing EPA certification, NHTSA very likely would regard it as a newly manufactured motor vehicle which must be certified as meeting all contemporary FMVSS. It is here that the two agencies most diverge because of the breadth of NHTSA's regulatory authority which encompasses all motor vehicle equipment, and motor vehicles assembled from that equipment. You cite as an example of difficulty 'the treatment of FMVSS with regards to a '23 T-Bucket Hot Rod'. The first question to answer is whether the car has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Factors to consider in this determination are whether the Hot Rod is intended solely for use on closed race tracks, whether it must be trailered from race to race, and whether a State would license it for on road use. If the car has not been manufactured primarily for on road use, then it is not a 'motor vehicle' as defined by the Vehicle Safety Act, and not subject to the FMVSS. If the car is a 'motor vehicle' and entirely assembled from parts from a disassembled motor vehicle or vehicles previously in use, then it is considered a 'used' vehicle, and also not subject to the FMVSS (but subject to state and local standards). On the other hand, if the kit car is entirely comprised of previously unused parts, then it is a new motor vehicle that is required to comply with, and be certified as complying with, the FMVSS (and its manufacturer may be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of those standards under 49 CFR Part 555). If the kit car is comprised of parts both previously used and unused, NHTSA's examination of the list of components in each category will enable it to advise whether the kit car must comply with the FMVSS that apply to new vehicles. In addition, we also receive inquiries from those who wish to construct vehicles which use a 'host' chassis from a previously certified vehicle. The Act permits a manufacturer to modify a previously certified vehicle in any manner as long as it does not knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed by the original manufacturer in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as meaning that, if the manufacturer removes the original body, at the end of the conversion process the resulting motor vehicle must continue to comply with the FMVSS that were in effect when it was originally manufactured. However, a certain divergence from original vehicle compliance is permitted. For example, if a 1982 enclosed passenger car is modified to become a convertible, at the end of the conversion process it is no longer required to meet enclosed car FMVSS but must comply with those that applied to l982 convertibles. The Act does not require that such vehicles be certified but the manufacturer should be prepared to substantiate that it has not rendered inoperative any of the vehicle's original safety equipment, either directly or indirectly (such as a substantial increase in the weight of the vehicle that might affect its crash protection characteristics) in the event NHTSA should so ask. Finally, we note your remark that NHRA and SEMA are debating whether a policy can 'be developed which will allow these builders to produce an authentic replica and stay within the standards.' As I discussed above, the FMVSS would not appear to apply to a replica vehicle such as a Miller racing car from the 1920's that could not be licensed for on road use. However, the FMVSS do apply to vehicles composed of newly manufactured parts that replicate the look of older vehicles. For this reason, 100% authenticity cannot be achieved for a replica required to meet the current FMVSS because of equipment such as the center highmounted stop lamp, side marker lamps and reflectors, and head and other occupant restraints required for safety today. As a general rule, we would not provide temporary exemptions from these standards. In our view, the only viable candidate for an authentic replica is one that is constructed on a 'host' chassis of a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1968, the date that the first FMVSS became effective, or entirely from used parts. I would also note that much authenticity could result from use of a 'host' chassis manufactured during calendar year l968. Although the appearance of the interior would be affected by compliance with certain FMVSS, the FMVSS requiring side marker lamps and reflectors and head restraints did not become effective until January 1, 1969. Sincerely, John Womack 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.