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: nht93-5.47OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: August 5, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein TO: Cary Klingner -- Trison Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/12/93 from Cary Klingner to John Womack (OCC-8874) TEXT:
We have received your letter of July 12, 1993, with respect to Trison's "Daytime Running Lights" module. You have heard that "federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept", and ask whether the device "complies with the regulations." As you have described it, the product activates the lower beam headlamps whenever the engine is running, and may be overridden by the vehicle's headlamp switch. The module "can be installed by any car owner." On January 11, 1993, we amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to permit motor vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps (other than parking and fog lamps) wired to operate automatically during daytime. Before the amendment, paragraph S5.5.3 of Standard No. 108 required taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. However, the amendment modified this requirement to state that taillamps "need not be activated if the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity" when in use as daytime running lamps. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. We have received petitions for reconsideration of aspects of the rule other than S5.5.3, and it is possible that the standard will eventually be amended in response to them. The amendment does not establish requirements for aftermarket equipment such as your module. There is no Federal restriction on the sale of the module, but there are restrictions on its installation on new vehicles. A manufacturer, distributor, and dealer of a new motor vehicle must deliver it in full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As we understand it, your module would activate the lower beam headlamps at their full intensity, and the taillamps would not be activated until the main headlamp switch was used. This would create a noncompliance with S5.5.3, since the taillamps must be activated when the headlamps are activated at full intensity. In addition, the module also impairs the effectiveness of the taillamps within the meaning of a prohibition imposed by S5.1.3. For these reasons, a manufacturer or dealer could not legally install the module on a new motor vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. With respect to installation of the module in a vehicle after its first sale, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "render inoperative, in whole or in part," lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because the taillamps apparently will not operate when the lower beam headlamps are activated at full intensity by the module, in our opinion, the taillamps have been rendered inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. However, the module can be installed by the vehicle owner. The statutory prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner, and modifications by the owner are subject only to State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. We do not understand your remark that "Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated," and believe that your interpretation must be incorrect. Under the Act, if a State has a standard on lighting performance, it must be identical to the Federal standard. I hope that you find this information helpful. |
|
ID: 17589.wkmOpenMr. Ted Reiniger Dear Mr. Reiniger: Please pardon the delay in responding to your inquiry faxed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether Canadian-licensed carriers can operate in the United States if not equipped with antilock brake systems (ABS). Truck tractors equipped with air brake systems manufactured on and after March 1, 1997 and single-unit trucks, buses, trailers, and trailer converter dollies equipped with air brake systems manufactured on and after March 1, 1998 must be equipped with antilock brake systems (ABS) in order to operate in the United States (U.S.). The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recently published a final rule that amended the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (63 FR 24454) (copy enclosed). The rule requires all air brake equipped commercial motor vehicles manufactured on and after the dates stated above and operating in interstate commerce in the U.S. to be equipped with ABS that meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.121). The requirements promulgated in the rule specifically apply to vehicles entering the U.S. from Canada and Mexico (see pages 24459 and 24464 of enclosure). With respect to truck tractors manufactured prior to March 1, 1997 and single-unit trucks, buses, trailers, and converter dollies manufactured prior to March 1, 1998, the FHWA does not require retrofitting such vehicles with ABS. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: nht92-2.22OpenDATE: 11/17/92 FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: SHIRLEY A. STEWART -- PRESIDENT SAS ELECTRICAL SERVICE, INC. ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-16-92 FROM SHIRLEY A. STEWART TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 7866) TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 16, 1992, to this office regarding the installation of a "silent monitor" on school buses. You stated in your letter that you made a presentation to Mr. Maurice Hicks and Mr. Rich Van Iderstine of this agency at a meeting on October 2, 1992, and you asked how our standards apply to installation of this device on school buses. You described the silent monitor as a six-inch cube of welded steel designed to house a video camera to monitor the interior of school buses. You explained that the device is installed in the interior access panel above the bus windshield facing the passenger compartment. The box protrudes into the interior of the bus by three to four inches. The front of the box, which swings open for installation of a video camera, contains a reflective solar glass window to prevent glare on the inside of the box. 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 silent monitors. However, it is possible that the installation of a silent monitor 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 silent monitor is installed in a new school bus 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 silent monitor is installed in a used school bus, any businesses, including your own, 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 silent monitors could affect the compliance of school buses with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those addressing school bus body joint strength, crash protection, and windshield intrusion. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. As indicated above, you stated that your silent monitor would be installed in the interior access panel above the bus windshield facing the passenger compartment. Given the added weight that would be on the panel, we suggest that you carefully evaluate whether additional securement of the panel is needed to ensure that the panel and silent monitor do not come loose during a crash. We also note that the silent monitor appears to have sharp edges. You may wish to consider adding padding to prevent injury to an occupant who comes in contact with the monitor. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. ATTACHMMENTS (FACT SHEET AND BOOKLET OMITTED.) |
|
ID: 7866-2Open Ms. Shirley A. Stewart Dear Ms. Stewart: This responds to your letter of October 16, 1992, to this office regarding the installation of a "silent monitor" on school buses. You stated in your letter that you made a presentation to Mr. Maurice Hicks and Mr. Rich Van Iderstine of this agency at a meeting on October 2, 1992, and you asked how our standards apply to installation of this device on school buses. You described the silent monitor as a six-inch cube of welded steel designed to house a video camera to monitor the interior of school buses. You explained that the device is installed in the interior access panel above the bus windshield facing the passenger compartment. The box protrudes into the interior of the bus by three to four inches. The front of the box, which swings open for installation of a video camera, contains a reflective solar glass window to prevent glare on the inside of the box. 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 silent monitors. However, it is possible that the installation of a silent monitor 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 silent monitor is installed in a new school bus 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 silent monitor is installed in a used school bus, any businesses, including your own, 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 silent monitors could affect the compliance of school buses with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those addressing school bus body joint strength, crash protection, and windshield intrusion. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. As indicated above, you stated that your silent monitor would be installed in the interior access panel above the bus windshield facing the passenger compartment. Given the added weight that would be on the panel, we suggest that you carefully evaluate whether additional securement of the panel is needed to ensure that the panel and silent monitor do not come loose during a crash. We also note that the silent monitor appears to have sharp edges. You may wish to consider adding padding to prevent injury to an occupant who comes in contact with the monitor. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref:#201#208#221#222 d:11/17/92 |
1992 |
ID: nht93-6.1OpenDATE: August 5, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein TO: Cary Klingner -- Trison Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/12/93 from Cary Klingner to John Womack (OCC-8874) TEXT: We have received your letter of July 12, 1993, with respect to Trison's "Daytime Running Lights" module. You have heard that "federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept", and ask whether the device "complies with the regulations." As you have described it, the product activates the lower beam headlamps whenever the engine is running, and may be overridden by the vehicle's headlamp switch. The module "can be installed by any car owner." On January 11, 1993, we amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to permit motor vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps (other than parking and fog lamps) wired to operate automatically during daytime. Before the amendment, paragraph S5.5.3 of Standard No. 108 required taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. However, the amendment modified this requirement to state that taillamps "need not be activated if the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity" when in use as daytime running lamps. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. We have received petitions for reconsideration of aspects of the rule other than S5.5.3, and it is possible that the standard will eventually be amended in response to them. The amendment does not establish requirements for aftermarket equipment such as your module. There is no Federal restriction on the sale of the module, but there are restrictions on its installation on new vehicles. A manufacturer, distributor, and dealer of a new motor vehicle must deliver it in full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As we understand it, your module would activate the lower beam headlamps at their full intensity, and the taillamps would not be activated until the main headlamp switch was used. This would create a noncompliance with S5.5.3, since the taillamps must be activated when the headlamps are activated at full intensity. In addition, the module also impairs the effectiveness of the taillamps within the meaning of a prohibition imposed by S5.1.3. For these reasons, a manufacturer or dealer could not legally install the module on a new motor vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. With respect to installation of the module in a vehicle after its first sale, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "render inoperative, in whole or in part," lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because the taillamps apparently will not operate when the lower beam headlamps are activated at full intensity by the module, in our opinion, the taillamps have been rendered inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. However, the module can be installed by the vehicle owner. The statutory prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner, and modifications by the owner are subject only to State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. We do not understand your remark that "Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated," and believe that your interpretation must be incorrect. Under the Act, if a State has a standard on lighting performance, it must be identical to the Federal standard. I hope that you find this information helpful. |
|
ID: 8874Open Mr. Cary Klingner Dear Mr. Klingner: We have received your letter of July 12, 1993, with respect to Trison's "Daytime Running Lights" module. You have heard that "federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept", and ask whether the device "complies with the regulations." As you have described it, the product activates the lower beam headlamps whenever the engine is running, and may be overridden by the vehicle's headlamp switch. The module "can be installed by any car owner." On January 11, 1993, we amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to permit motor vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps (other than parking and fog lamps) wired to operate automatically during daytime. Before the amendment, paragraph S5.5.3 of Standard No. 108 required taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. However, the amendment modified this requirement to state that taillamps "need not be activated if the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity" when in use as daytime running lamps. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. We have received petitions for reconsideration of aspects of the rule other than S5.5.3, and it is possible that the standard will eventually be amended in response to them. The amendment does not establish requirements for aftermarket equipment such as your module. There is no Federal restriction on the sale of the module, but there are restrictions on its installation on new vehicles. A manufacturer, distributor, and dealer of a new motor vehicle must deliver it in full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As we understand it, your module would activate the lower beam headlamps at their full intensity, and the taillamps would not be activated until the main headlamp switch was used. This would create a noncompliance with S5.5.3, since the taillamps must be activated when the headlamps are activated at full intensity. In addition, the module also impairs the effectiveness of the taillamps within the meaning of a prohibition imposed by S5.1.3. For these reasons, a manufacturer or dealer could not legally install the module on a new motor vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. With respect to installation of the module in a vehicle after its first sale, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "render inoperative, in whole or in part," lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because the taillamps apparently will not operate when the lower beam headlamps are activated at full intensity by the module, in our opinion, the taillamps have been rendered inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. However, the module can be installed by the vehicle owner. The statutory prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner, and modifications by the owner are subject only to State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. We do not understand your remark that "Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated," and believe that your interpretation must be incorrect. Under the Act, if a State has a standard on lighting performance, it must be identical to the Federal standard. I hope that you find this information helpful. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108#VSA |
|
ID: 9115Open Mr. Cary Klingner Dear Mr. Klingner: We have received your letter of July 12, 1993, with respect to Trison's "Daytime Running Lights" module. You have heard that "federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept", and ask whether the device "complies with the regulations." As you have described it, the product activates the lower beam headlamps whenever the engine is running, and may be overridden by the vehicle's headlamp switch. The module "can be installed by any car owner." On January 11, 1993, we amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to permit motor vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps (other than parking and fog lamps) wired to operate automatically during daytime. Before the amendment, paragraph S5.5.3 of Standard No. 108 required taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. However, the amendment modified this requirement to state that taillamps "need not be activated if the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity" when in use as daytime running lamps. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. We have received petitions for reconsideration of aspects of the rule other than S5.5.3, and it is possible that the standard will eventually be amended in response to them. The amendment does not establish requirements for aftermarket equipment such as your module. There is no Federal restriction on the sale of the module, but there are restrictions on its installation on new vehicles. A manufacturer, distributor, and dealer of a new motor vehicle must deliver it in full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As we understand it, your module would activate the lower beam headlamps at their full intensity, and the taillamps would not be activated until the main headlamp switch was used. This would create a noncompliance with S5.5.3, since the taillamps must be activated when the headlamps are activated at full intensity. In addition, the module also impairs the effectiveness of the taillamps within the meaning of a prohibition imposed by S5.1.3. For these reasons, a manufacturer or dealer could not legally install the module on a new motor vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. With respect to installation of the module in a vehicle after its first sale, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "render inoperative, in whole or in part," lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because the taillamps apparently will not operate when the lower beam headlamps are activated at full intensity by the module, in our opinion, the taillamps have been rendered inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. However, the module can be installed by the vehicle owner. The statutory prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner, and modifications by the owner are subject only to State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. We do not understand your remark that "Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated," and believe that your interpretation must be incorrect. Under the Act, if a State has a standard on lighting performance, it must be identical to the Federal standard. I hope that you find this information helpful. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108#VSA |
|
ID: 19089.ztvOpenMr. Tadashi Suzuki Re: Headlamp Lens Coating Dear Mr. Suzuki: This is in reply to your letter of November 5, 1998, asking for an interpretation of S5.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. According to your letter, Stanley Electric Co. has developed a new coating to "be applied to the inner surface of the headlamp lens for the purpose of" preventing frost. You relate that "the lens with its original coating applied to the outer surface" complies with Standard No. 108 after the 3-year outdoor exposure test of S5.1.2(b). The application of the inner coating "will not cause any change in the conformity of the original lens with its outer surface coating." For this reason, you believe that no further testing is required after application of the inner coating, and you ask whether your interpretation is correct. Standard No. 108 does not require headlamp lenses to be coated on either the outer or inner surface. However, some manufacturers of headlamps with plastic lenses coat the outer surface of the lens as a means of ensuring that the plastic materials used in the lens meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J576 JUL91, incorporated by reference in S5.1.2, and the requirements of S7.4(h) of Standard No. 108. We cannot answer your question. Stanley must ensure that its headlamps as manufactured conform with all requirements of Standard No. 108. It is Stanley's responsibility in certifying compliance of the headlamp with all applicable standards within Standard No. 108 to determine whether a coating on the inner surface of the plastic lens would result in a noncompliance of the plastic materials with S5.1.2 after a 3-year exposure test, whether or not Stanley conducts an actual test. Further, Stanley must ensure that the presence of the inner coating does not affect the ability of the headlamp to meet all the requirements that apply to it. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: nht79-4.41OpenDATE: 11/29/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Delta Six Industries Inc. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 6, 1979, asking for our concurrence in your understanding of your obligation in importing trailers in kit form. The pertinent part of your letter reads: "Mr. Vinson advised me that so long as the kits included all proper lighting, rims and tires placards, name plates, etc., as required to be in compliance with Federal standards for such trailers, and adequate written instructions are included with the kit to insure proper assembly, there would be no legal problem preventing the sale of these kits in the United States." Your understanding is correct. The kit's lighting equipment must meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) and the instructions should indicate installation in locations meeting the requirements of that standard. Tires and rims must comply with Standards Nos. 119 and 120 respectively (49 CFR 571.119, 571.120), and a certification label must be included, to be affixed by the assembler, that conforms to 49 CFR Part 567. SINCERELY, DELTA SIX INDUSTRIES, INC. November 6, 1979 Frank Berndt Chief Counsel, N.H.T.S.A. Dear Mr. Berndt: During my visit to Washington I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office on October 10, 1979. At that time we discussed the question of importing a small trailer manufactured in Germany for sale in the United States in kit form. My question was, is there any legal problem which could prevent the sale of these import kits in the United States? Mr. Vinson advised me that so long as the kits included all proper lighting, rims and tires, placards, name plates, etc., as required to be in compliance with Federal standards for such trailers, and adequate written instructions are included with the kit to insure proper assembly, there would be no legal problem preventing the sale of these kits in the United States. On the basis of the above comments by Mr. Vinson we are proceeding with negotiations to enter into this program. If there is any reason in your judgment to change or modify the above, please advise us as soon as possible by return mail. In any event, I would appreciate a letter of concurrence from your office that the above is accurate. B. Kreitzer |
|
ID: 09-002634 -- Gepper (WMI for alterer--EU) -- rsy 16 Jun 09OpenMr. Charles Gepper Homologation Engineer Vehicle Certification Agency 47 Samaritan Avenue Ashland, OH 44805-3922 Dear Mr. Gepper: This responds to your request to Mr. Coleman Sachs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. You ask NHTSA to explore a means to allow SAE to issue a WMI [World Manufacturer Identifier] to a company which purchases incomplete trailer frames from U.S. manufacturers and completes them for sale in Europe. You describe a situation in which French authorities are refusing to license these vehicles until the VINs on the statutory plates have [the companys] WMIs. Based on the information you have provided and our analysis below, our answer is that SAE is not required to issue a WMI to the company (Pratt and Whitney Power Systems (PWPS)) because PWPS appears to be an alterer under our regulations. At the same time, while we do not consider SAE required to issue a WMI to PWPS, we would not prohibit it from doing so. In your letter, you state that PWPS purchases incomplete trailer frames from several U.S. manufacturers, that come with as completed as possibleABS controller and braking, 5th wheel pins and couplings, lighting, spray suppression, rear underrun protection, side underrun protection, tires and statutory plates. You further state that PWPS then installs a jet engine power generating system and controls to make them into part of a series of three portable generating stations sold to locations under French authority. You note additionally that PWPS completes final assembly of some systems and component installations required for EU Type Approval. As we understand this situation, PWPS is purchasing completed vehicles, with certification labels affixed by the original manufacturers, and adding components to make them into portable generating stations. So long as it is performing these operations before the vehicles are sold to their first retail purchaser, PWPS is an alterer under our regulations (49 CFR Part 567). NHTSAs regulation (49 CFR Part 565) that establishes requirements for vehicle identification numbers (VINs) requires the VIN to be assigned by the vehicles manufacturer.[1] 49 CFR 565.13(a) states that-- Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Each vehicle manufactured in more than one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR 567.16, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. [Emphasis added.] In the case of the vehicles described in your letter, it appears that the VINs would be assigned by the U.S. manufacturers from whom PWPS purchases the units, i.e., the original vehicle manufacturer. Those U.S. manufacturers would include in those VINs their unique manufacturer identifiers, obtained from SAE International. Under NHTSAs regulations, PWPS would maintain the VIN assigned by the original vehicle manufacturer and affix to the vehicle its own label certifying that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration. See, 49 CFR 567.7. This label must not obscure the label affixed to the vehicle by the original manufacturer, and would not include a VIN or a WMI. If the alterations change the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) assigned to the vehicle by the original manufacturer, or any of the vehicles gross axle weight ratings (GAWRs), the modified values must be specified on the alterers certification label. See 49 CFR 567.7(b)(2). In addition, if the vehicle, as altered, has a different type classification from the one specified by the original manufacturer, the type as modified must be provided on the label. See 49 CFR 567.7(b)(3). You state that the trailers are altered by PWPS for sale in Europe and that regulatory authorities in that market require the vehicles to have a VIN that incorporates a WMI assigned to PWPS. NHTSA has previously addressed whether our regulations would prohibit a company from obtaining a WMI from SAE for use on vehicles to be offered for sale outside of the U.S. See, letter to Erika Z. Jones, July 8, 1991.[2] NHTSA stated in that letter that its contract with SAE to coordinate the assignment of manufacturer identifiers pursuant to Part 565 is naturally limited by NHTSAs statutory authority. As the agency explained, Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA administers Federal regulations, including Part 565, relating to the manufacture, sale, introduction into interstate commerce, and/or importation of motor vehicles into the United States. Because NHTSAs contract with SAE relates to coordinating the assignment of WMIs [manufacturer identifiers] to manufacturers that manufacture motor vehicles sold or offered for sale in the United States, we concluded that SAE has no contractual obligation to NHTSA with respect to the assignment of WMIs to manufacturers whose vehicles are not offered for sale in the United States. So long as such assignments do not confuse or obscure the meaning of the WMIs assigned for vehicles offered for sale in the United States, SAE is free to exercise its judgment as to the appropriateness of any such assignments. [Emphasis added.] We believe that this interpretation applies to your situation. PWPS does not need a manufacturer identifier in order to comply with NHTSA regulations; it needs one to obtain a license from the French authority. Under the 1991 interpretation, we would not consider SAE to be prohibited from issuing a WMI to PWPS, so long as doing so would not confuse or obscure the meaning of the WMIs assigned for vehicles offered for sale in the United States. Note, however, that we also would not consider them required to issue one. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:565 d.7/24/09 [1] The WMI is included in the vehicle identification number (VIN) each manufacturer must assign its vehicle. The WMI for domestic manufacturers is obtained from SAE International under contract with NHTSA. [2] Available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/3059yy.html and also enclosed with this response. |
2009 |
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.