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: 17588.wkmOpenMr. Barrie Montague Dear Mr. Montague: Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter in which you asked whether a trailer manufactured in Canada after February 28, 1998 without an antilock brake system (ABS) and sold to a Canadian motor carrier can be used in international shipments. You defined "international shipment" as one that originates in Canada and terminates in the United States (U.S.). The answer is no. 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 trailers manufactured on and after March 1, 1998 that operate commercially 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 trailers and converter dollies manufactured prior to March 1, 1998, the FHWA does not require retrofitting those vehicles with ABS. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: nht75-2.22OpenDATE: 09/18/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Michelin Tire Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 9, 1975, inquiring as to the proper designation of plies on a truck tire constructed with two polyamide plies in the casing and two steel plies in the belt. The designation that you suggested ("Tread: 2 Steel Plies; Sidewall: 2 Polyamide Plies") is incorrect. The designation on such a tire should indicate the presence of four plies in the tread area and two in the sidewall area (with compositions in each case). Yours truly, ATTACH. JULY 9, 1975 Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation Dear Sir: The Michelin Tire Corporation will be offering for sale in the U.S.A. truck tires which contain casing plies made of polyamide and belts made of steel. A typical tire would be constructed with two polyamide plies in the casing and two steel plies in the belt. Pursuant to paragraph S6.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119, we will mark such a tire as follows: Tread: 2 Steel Plies Sidewall: 2 Polyamide Plies Please advise us if this does not comply with the requirements of the regulation. Thank you. Yours truly, MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group; John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept. |
|
ID: 1985-03.16OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/11/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: K. Weight TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo, UT 84601
Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows in automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.
FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a new passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent; clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.
Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver to detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance less than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the "black window" is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.
No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may 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 motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so long as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel
5/4/85
Elizabeth Dole - PERSONAL National Highway Traffic Admin. 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D. C. 20590
Dear Mrs. Dole:
I wrote you 4/26/85 re several safety questions I had. I am wondering why black windows are allowed on automobiles now? With kidnappings, and failure for a police officer to see into a car, I am thinking these dark windows should be banned. If I am writing to the wrong dept. please tell me who to write. Very truly yours,
K. Weight 65 E 200 N Provo, Utah 84601 |
|
ID: 08-004771--Holt--10 Dec 08 rsyOpenMr. Harley Holt Harley Holt & Associates, Inc. 1704 Random Stone Court Reston, VA 20190-3251 Dear Mr. Holt: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems. You asked when a manufacturer is required to certify compliance with this standard if it passes the small volume manufacturer threshold of 5,000 vehicles in the middle of one of the September 1 to August 31 phase-in years. As discussed below, a manufacturer is subject to the regular phase-in requirements for the entire phase-in year if it manufactures more than 5,000 vehicles in that period. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This letter interprets FMVSS No. 126 based on our understanding of the information you have provided. You stated that you represent an importer of all-electric vehicles, and explained that the manufacturer of the vehicles has not yet begun to produce vehicles for the U.S., but will begin production sometime during 2009. You stated that the manufacturer did not anticipate producing more than 5,000 units during the first production year, i.e., September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2009. However, you stated further that production is expected to exceed 5,000 units sometime during the period from September 1, 2009 and August 31, 2011. You asked, therefore, on what date a manufacturer is required to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 126 if it exceeds the small volume limit of 5,000 units produced sometime during a production year from September 1 through August 31 of any of the three years of the phase-in period for that standard. Paragraph S8.7 of FMVSS No. 126, Small volume manufacturers, states that Vehicles manufactured during any of the three years of the September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2011 phase-in by a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the United States during that year are not subject to the requirements of S8.1, S8.2, S8.3, and S8.5. 49 CFR 571.126, S8.7. Thus, small volume manufacturers producing less than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the United States in a given phase-in year are not subject to the S8 phase-in requirements. However, if a manufacturer exceeds the 5,000 unit threshold for a phase-in year, it does not qualify as a small volume manufacturer for purposes of S8.7, and it is subject to the regular phase-in requirement for the entire phase-in year.[1] The 5,000-unit threshold was chosen to ensure that only manufacturers that are truly small volume are excluded from the phase-in requirements for ESC. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:126 d.1/16/09 [1] We note that all vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011 must comply with FMVSS No. 126, unless they are manufactured in two or more stages or are altered after having previously been certified, per S8.4 and S8.8. All vehicles, regardless of whether they are manufactured in two or more stages or are altered, must comply with FMVSS No. 126 by September 1, 2012, per S8.8. |
2009 |
ID: nht90-3.23OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: July 19, 1990 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Susan Birenbaum -- Acting General Counsel, United States Consumer Product Safety Commission TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Letter dated 10-26-89 to S. Wood from S. Birenbaum; (OCC 4092); and photos (text omitted); and undated Consumer Product Incident Report for D.Jaeger TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether a product would be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). I apologize for the delay in this response. The pr oduct in question is called "kwik kool" and is intended to improve the performance of motor vehicles' air conditioning systems. The packaging and labeling for this product that were enclosed with your letter indicate that "kwik kool" is intended exclusi vely for use with a motor vehicle and by ordinary users of motor vehicles. We conclude that this product is "motor vehicle equipment." As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . "Kwik kool" is an aerosol component that appears to be manufactured and sold for the improvement of motor vehicle air conditioning systems. As such, it is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. You noted in your letter that the Consumer Product Safety Act excludes items of "motor vehicle equipment" from those "consumer products" subject to the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission under that Act. This agency, on the other hand, ha s express statutory authority to investigate allegations that an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Pursuant to the request in your letter, we have forwarded the complaint enclosed with your letter to our Office of Defects Investigation. If you have any questions or would like some additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht94-4.74OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: November 1, 1994 FROM: Steve Brooks -- General Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc. TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO STEVE BROOKS (REDBOOK (2)); STD. 208) TEXT: We are currently converting a Subaru Panel Van from an internal combustion powertrain to one of pure electric drive. The vehicle is currently a prototype with a central battery pack situated between the road wheels and under the load floor. The vehicle has been designed to meet the needs of a fleet vehicle, for example a small delivery van that has a fixed short work cycle of 40 miles. It is required to be freeway capable, although it is primarily for inner-city and suburban use. The specifications are: Overall length 1885mm Overall width 1415mm Gross vehicle weight 3500lbs. or less Maximum 2 persons The vehicle would be classified as light goods vehicle. Would you be able to help me with the definition of crash testing for front and side impact for the vehicle for current and future production, also with the requirement for dual air bags if necessa ry in the future. Do you have any information on approach and departure angles or are they OEM recommended standards? The vehicle will be modified in the state of California to OEM build standards. If you can help with any of the information it will be very much appreciated. |
|
ID: nht95-5.39OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 26, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Michael J. Wirsch -- Manager, Electric Transportation Department, Sacramento Municipal Utility District TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/16/95 LETTER FROM MICHAEL J. WIRSCH TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 11006) TEXT: Dear Mr. Wirsch: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1995, relating to the disposition of 16 City-El electric vehicles ("EVs") which were imported into the United States in 1992 for purposes of demonstration and testing. The EVs do not meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The EVs were imported pursuant to the declaration that, at the end of the test period, they would be exported or brought into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards not later than November 1995. You suggest that there may be a third alternative, which you would prefer: "transferring ownership" to McClellan Air Force Base for use on base property and not on the public roads. McClellan apparently has been testing another group of 25 EVs. Although a literal interpretation of our regulations does not permit this transaction without exportation and reimportation of the EVs, we have determined that the transaction you propose is in the public interest, and may be accomplished, subject to the terms of this letter. In brief, the regulation under which the EVs were imported does not allow transfer of ownership or possession, and provides that such vehicles must be exported or brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the end of the period for which admission has been authorized. The regulations would permit the EVs to be exported to Mexico or Canada, transferred to McClellan, and reimported into the United States by McClellan under the same terms and conditions as the original importation (your letter indicates that McClellan may also be engaged in an evaluation of electric vehicles for use on military bases). We assume that this course of action would be acceptable to you and to McClellan. Under that assumption, we have tentatively concluded that it would be in the public interest to forego the formalities and to allow a direct transfer of the EVs to McClellan without requiring them to be exported. However, in order to allow us to reach a final conclusion, we want you to obtain from McClellan and to provide us with a written statement similar to what McClellan would have provided had it imported the vehicles itself. Understanding from you that the EVs will not be operated on the public roads, McClellan should also provide this assurance. We also need a statement as to McClellan's eventual intended disposition of the EVs, which should include an assurance that none of the EVs will be sold to individuals for on-road use. This is especially important in view of the fact that McClellan appears to be one of the military bases that has been selected for closure. Our eventual agreement to the transaction you propose will not relieve you of your obligation to fulfill the requirements of the U.S. Customs Service regarding the original importation of the EVs. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). |
|
ID: nht95-3.60OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 26, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Michael J. Wirsch -- Manager, Electric Transportation Department, Sacramento Municipal Utility District TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/16/95 LETTER FROM MICHAEL J. WIRSCH TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 11006) TEXT: Dear Mr. Wirsch: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1995, relating to the disposition of 16 City-El electric vehicles ("EVs") which were imported into the United States in 1992 for purposes of demonstration and testing. The EVs do not meet the Federal motor veh icle safety standards. The EVs were imported pursuant to the declaration that, at the end of the test period, they would be exported or brought into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards not later than November 1995. You suggest that there may be a third alternative, which you would prefer: "transferring ownership" to McClellan Air Force Base for use on base property and not on the public roads. McClellan apparently has been testing another group of 25 EVs. Although a literal interpretation of our regulations does not permit this transaction without exportation and reimportation of the EVs, we have determined that the transaction you propose is in the public interest, and may be accomplished, subject to the terms of this letter. In brief, the regulation under which the EVs were imported does not allow transfer of ownership or possession, and provides that such vehicles must be exported or brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the e nd of the period for which admission has been authorized. The regulations would permit the EVs to be exported to Mexico or Canada, transferred to McClellan, and reimported into the United States by McClellan under the same terms and conditions as the or iginal importation (your letter indicates that McClellan may also be engaged in an evaluation of electric vehicles for use on military bases). We assume that this course of action would be acceptable to you and to McClellan. Under that assumption, we have tentatively concluded that it would be in the public interest to forego the formalities and to allow a direct transfer of the EVs to McClell an without requiring them to be exported. However, in order to allow us to reach a final conclusion, we want you to obtain from McClellan and to provide us with a written statement similar to what McClellan would have provided had it imported the vehicle s itself. Understanding from you that the EVs will not be operated on the public roads, McClellan should also provide this assurance. We also need a statement as to McClellan's eventual intended disposition of the EVs, which should include an assurance that none of the EVs will be sold to individuals for on-road use. This is especially important in view of the fact that McClellan appears to be one of the military bases that has been selected for closure. Our eventual agreement to the transaction you propose will not relieve you of your obligation to fulfill the requirements of the U.S. Customs Service regarding the original importation of the EVs. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). |
|
ID: 1006Open Mr. Michael J. Wirsch Dear Mr. Wirsch: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1995, relating to the disposition of 16 City-El electric vehicles ("EVs") which were imported into the United States in 1992 for purposes of demonstration and testing. The EVs do not meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The EVs were imported pursuant to the declaration that, at the end of the test period, they would be exported or brought into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards not later than November 1995. You suggest that there may be a third alternative, which you would prefer: "transferring ownership" to McClellan Air Force Base for use on base property and not on the public roads. McClellan apparently has been testing another group of 25 EVs. Although a literal interpretation of our regulations does not permit this transaction without exportation and reimportation of the EVs, we have determined that the transaction you propose is in the public interest, and may be accomplished, subject to the terms of this letter. In brief, the regulation under which the EVs were imported does not allow transfer of ownership or possession, and provides that such vehicles must be exported or brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the end of the period for which admission has been authorized. The regulations would permit the EVs to be exported to Mexico or Canada, transferred to McClellan, and reimported into the United States by McClellan under the same terms and conditions as the original importation (your letter indicates that McClellan may also be engaged in an evaluation of electric vehicles for use on military bases). We assume that this course of action would be acceptable to you and to McClellan. Under that assumption, we have tentatively concluded that it would be in the public interest to forego the formalities and to allow a direct transfer of the EVs to McClellan without requiring them to be exported. However, in order to allow us to reach a final conclusion, we want you to obtain from McClellan and to provide us with a written statement similar to what McClellan would have provided had it imported the vehicles itself. Understanding from you that the EVs will not be operated on the public roads, McClellan should also provide this assurance. We also need a statement as to McClellan's eventual intended disposition of the EVs, which should include an assurance that none of the EVs will be sold to individuals for on-road use. This is especially important in view of the fact that McClellan appears to be one of the military bases that has been selected for closure. Our eventual agreement to the transaction you propose will not relieve you of your obligation to fulfill the requirements of the U.S. Customs Service regarding the original importation of the EVs. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591 d:7/26/95
|
1995 |
ID: weeengin.crsOpen Mr. Jon Shippee Dear Mr. Shippee: This is in response to your letter of December 13, 1996, in which you state that Wee Engineer Inc. wishes to be registered with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as a vehicle manufacturer under 49 CFR Part 566. You request our assistance in determining the proper classification of the company as a vehicle manufacturer, and in identifying the necessary actions that the company should take. As described in your letter, Wee Engineer purchases used tractors and trucks and disassembles the components that were added to those vehicles by previous final stage manufacturers, restoring them to the configuration they were in at the incomplete vehicle stage. The company then may either lengthen or shorten the unit, or add or subtract axles and springs, depending on the application for which the vehicle is intended. Additionally, the company may either raise or lower the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) originally assigned to the vehicle to meet its intended application. You state that Wee Engineer is aware that the original certification label must remain on the vehicle. However, the company is concerned that the GVWR identified on that label will not be accurate following the modifications that it performs. As a consequence, you have asked whether Wee Engineer could add an additional label, identifying the GVWR of the vehicle as reconfigured by the company. Incident to this request, you have asked whether Wee Engineer qualifies as a vehicle manufacturer subject to the vehicle certification requirements in 49 CFR Part 567, and if not, whether there is an exception to those requirements that would allow the company to affix certification labels. Alternatively, you have asked whether Part 567 could be amended to grant certification responsibilities to manufacturers who modify a used vehicle's GVWR or change its classification. From the information you have provided, it appears that Wee Engineer modifies used vehicles and then installs new body and work performing components on those vehicles. Because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are issued by NHTSA apply only to new vehicles, those are the only vehicles that must be certified as complying with the standards under 49 CFR Part 567. NHTSA has issued a regulation at 49 CFR 571.7(e) that specifies the applicability of the standards to vehicles that are assembled from both new and old components. That regulation provides that "[w]hen a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle." From your description of the manufacturing operations that Wee Engineer conducts, it appears that the engine, transmission and drive axles on the vehicles it assembles are used, and were all originally found on the same vehicle. As a consequence, Wee Engineer is not required to certify those vehicles under 49 CFR Part 567, and cannot be considered a manufacturer for the purpose of those requirements. As noted in your letter, Wee Engineer must ensure that the original certification label remains on these vehicles. Additionally, to avoid a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(b), the company must not "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [those vehicles] in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." The manufacturer identification requirements in 49 CFR Part 566 apply only to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. See 49 CFR 566.3. Wee Engineer would not be subject to those requirements unless it performs operations other than those described in your letter, which would result in the production of what this agency would regard as a new vehicle under 49 CFR 571.7(e) (i.e., a vehicle in which the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are new, or if used, are taken from three separate vehicles). In response to your questions regarding Part 567, there is currently no express exception that would allow a party other than the original manufacturer of a vehicle to certify its compliance with applicable safety standards. However, in prior interpretation letters, this Office has recognized that when modifications are made to a used vehicle that change the GVWR identified on its certification label, the modifier is permitted to install an additional label that identifies the GVWR of the vehicle as modified. We have allowed this practice so that owners and users of the vehicle may be apprised as to how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the address above, or by telephone at 202-366-5238. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:567 d:5/2/97 |
1997 |
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.