NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam1923OpenHonorable Carl Albert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Carl Albert Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Speaker: The purpose of this letter is to inform the committees on Interstat and Foreign Commerce and on Public Works and Transportation of recent activities and decisions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration relating to the establishment of a Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standard (UTQGS). We are pleased to announce that this standard, required by section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1423), was promulgated on May 20, 1975 (copy enclosed). The rule provides for grading tires in three areas: treadwear, traction, and temperature performance. I believe it will provide the consumer with the information he needs to determine which tire is the best value for him, considering his needs and driving habits.; As I am sure you are aware, we have had our share of problems i developing this rule. It had been our original intention to utilize a control tire against which other tires would be compared. In May of 1974, due to technical problems and time constraints imposed by the court in *Nash* v. *Brinegar*, Civil Action No. 17, D.C. (1974), the decision was made to attempt to utilize a control surface rather than a control tire. In order to investigate the feasibility of this approach, a section of runway at Goodfellow AFB, in San Angelo, Texas, was repaved, to provide a research control surface. At the outset of the research project the question had been raised regarding the applicability of section 301 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (which provides for specific approval by the above mentioned Committees of the House and their counterparts in the Senate, before constructing facilities for testing in traffic safety) to the construction of the control surfaces. It was then determined that since the action was a short-term effort, and in the nature of a feasibility study, section 301 was not applicable. This research project was successful and forms the basis of the rule.; We have recently obligated a sum of $75,000, in addition to th approximately $750,000 expended for the earlier research project (including $165,000 for the control surface), for the purpose of altering the control surfaces and nearby roadway to enable manufacturers to use these surfaces to meet the requirements of complying with the rule.; Even though the associated conversion costs were less than $100,000, w recognized that alterations to the surfaces in late FY 1976 and FY 1977 will cause total expenditures to rise above that level. Therefore, prior to proceeding with the recent site conversion effort, we focused again on the issue of the applicability of section 301. We determined that the section is inapplicable because the purpose of the control surface is to facilitate testing in a matter which is first and foremost consumer information rather than traffic safety, for, as stated in section 203 of the Act, UTQGS is established 'in order to assist the consumer to make an informed choice in the purchase of motor vehicle tires . . . .'; We will continue to keep you posted on the progress of the UTQGS a manufacturers begin testing. We expect to be able to provide the consumer with information in the near future which will enable him to make the best use of his tire dollars.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam4672OpenMr. Jeffrey Donaldson Human Factors Engineer Arcad l2025 Tech Center Dr. Livonia, MI 48l50; Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson Human Factors Engineer Arcad l2025 Tech Center Dr. Livonia MI 48l50; "Dear Mr. Donaldson: This responds to your request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the requirements of sections S5.l and S5.3.3(a) in connection with an instrument panel illumination intensity control. Your question is addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. As noted by your letter, section S5.l of Standard No. l0l reads as follows: S5.l Location. Under the conditions of S6, each of the following controls that is furnished shall be operable by the driver, and each of the following displays that is furnished shall be visible to the driver. . . . One of the controls listed under section S5.l is a hand-operated control for illumination intensity. Thus, under section S5.l, an instrument panel illumination intensity control is required to be in a location where it is operable by the driver. You also noted that section S5.3.3(a) requires that '(m)earns shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions.' You asked whether, under this section, an instrument panel illumination intensity control is required to be 'visible to the driver.' As discussed below, section S5.3.3(a) does not apply to an instrument panel illumination intensity control. Section S5.3.3(a) is one of a number of sections which appear under the heading 'Illumination.' See section S5.3. Standard No. l0l does not require that all controls be illuminated. Section S5.3.l sets forth requirements concerning which controls must be illuminated. Section S5.3.3(a) then sets forth additional illumination requirements for the controls which must be illuminated and their identification (as well as for gauges and their identification). In order to determine whether section S5.3.3(a) applies to a particular control, the first question is thus whether Standard No. l0l requires illumination for that control. As indicated above, this is covered in section S5.3.l. It provides that, with certain exceptions, the identification required by S5.2.l or S5.2.2 for any control listed in column l of Table l and accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. (Column 4 of Table l includes the heading 'Illumination.') Thus, Standard No. l0l requires illumination only for those controls which are listed in Table l and have the word 'yes' in the column for illumination. Since an instrument panel illumination intensity control is not listed at all in Table l, no illumination is required by Standard No. l0l for that control. Given that section S5.3.3(a)'s additional illumination requirements only apply to controls which Standard No. l0l requires to be illuminated, and since no illumination is required for an instrument panel illumination intensity control, the section's requirements do not apply to that control. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4388OpenJ. Douglas Hand, Esq., Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation, P.O. Box 33122, Detroit, MI 48232; J. Douglas Hand Esq. Legal Staff General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 33122 Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Hand: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR S571.208). Specifically, you asked whether General Motors Corporation (GM) can be deemed the manufacturer of passenger cars produced by Lotus Cars Limited (LCL) for the purposes of S4.1.3.5, the manufacturer attribution provisions of Standard No. 208. After we received your letter, you made us aware of certain changed circumstances. In your letter, you stated that GM did not own the entity that was the exclusive importer of Lotus vehicles, and that GM owned 96 percent of LCL. Subsequently, you have told us that GM wholly owns the companies that import and market Lotus vehicles in the United States and that GM wholly owns LCL. This letter of interpretation is based on the GM - Lotus corporate relationship described in this letter. To the extent that the description in this letter differs from the description set forth in your August, 1986 letter, it reflects our understanding of the changed circumstances. Our conclusion is that, since GM sponsors the importation, distribution, and marketing of these cars, GM may be considered the manufacturer of cars produced by LCL for the purposes of Standard No. 208.; You explained that LCL is a part of Group Lotus, a United Kingdo company that provides engineering services to various motor vehicle manufacturers and produces fewer than a thousand passenger cars a year. Group Lotus is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM, although LCL designs, builds, and certifies its cars without GM's advice. Approximately 200 Lotus passenger cars are imported into the United States each year by Lotus Performance Cars, Limited Partnership (LPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM. Lotus cars are marketed and distributed in the United States by Lotus Cars USA, Inc., another wholly-owned subsidiary of GM. Hence, GM owns the company that designs and assembles these cars, and GM owns the companies that import and market the vehicles.; Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines 'manufacturer' as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' Under this definition, *both* LCL and LPC are statutory manufacturers of Lotus passenger cars. LCL designs and assembles the cars, and has filed a designation of agent for service of process with this agency, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1399(e). By filing a designation of agent, LCL has acknowledged that it is offering its cars for importation into the United States. LPC imports those cars into the United States.; Section S4.1.3.5 of Standard No. 208 sets forth provisions fo instances in which passenger cars have more than one statutory 'manufacturer.' That section provides that the manufacturers may execute an express written contract to specify the manufacturer to which the cars shall be attributed. In the absence of such a contract, S4.1.3.5.1(a) provides that imported passenger cars will be attributed to the importer. Since there is no such contract in this instance, application of this provision means that the Lotus passenger cars, which are produced in the United Kingdom, would be attributed to LPC, the GM subsidiary which imports the cars into the United States.; In the April 12, 1985, proposal to establish attribution requirement in the case of vehicles that have more than one statutory 'manufacturer' (50 FR 14589), NHTSA stated that it considers the statutory definition of 'manufacturer' to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. See 50 FR 14596. The agency stated that if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles, applying basic principles of agency law. On the other hand, the agency stated that the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does *not* make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles.; Applying these principles to your case, we conclude that GM sponsor the importation of the Lotus vehicles. Both LCL, the actual assembler, and LPC, the actual importer, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of GM. By itself, GM's ownership of both the producer and importer of these cars might not be sufficient to establish that GM was the sponsor of these vehicles for the purposes of Standard No. 208. In addition, however, another wholly-owned subsidiary distributes and markets the vehicles in the United States. GM coordinates the activities of all these subsidiaries. Since GM wholly owns the actual producer of these vehicles and is actively involved in the importation, distribution, and marketing of these vehicles, we believe that GM should be considered to sponsor the importation of the Lotus vehicles. Accordingly, GM rather than LPC, may be considered the importer and manufacturer of these vehicles.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1470OpenMr. William A. Goichman, Rozner and Yorty, Suite 1808, 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90024; Mr. William A. Goichman Rozner and Yorty Suite 1808 10960 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90024; Dear Mr. Goichman: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on sea belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection,* requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems* specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempt state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. S 1392 (d)).; The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of sea belts and reclining seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4222OpenMr. Don Panzer, Spray-Rider, Inc., P.O. Box 299, Streetsville, Ontario L5M 2B8, Canada; Mr. Don Panzer Spray-Rider Inc. P.O. Box 299 Streetsville Ontario L5M 2B8 Canada; Dear Mr. Panzer: This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1986, describing supplemental hazard warning system you have developed which is designed to be incorporated as part of the external rear-view mirror assembly. You have asked about its relationship to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 111.; The information you enclosed depicts the lamp mounted above the outsid rear-view mirror in the same housing. According to your description it may face in the same direction as the mirror, or 'exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions.' It will flash synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps, and 'can also perform as a directional signal.'; Standard No. 108 deals only indirectly with lighting systems other tha those which it requires. Supplemental lighting equipment and other motor vehicle equipment are permissible under Paragraph S4.1.3 as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We believe that a possibility of impairment of the turn signal system might exist if your lamp-mirror were to operate in this fashion, and only one such device were installed on a vehicle. This suggests lamps providing a turn-signal function be packaged and sold in pairs and conversely that lamps sold singly not provide a turn-signal function. On the basis of the facts as you have presented them to us, we cannot say that impairment otherwise would exist, or that the device would not be acceptable as original equipment. However, because of the dual nature of the American legal system the fact that an accessory is not prohibited by Federal law does not mean that it is permissible under the laws of the individual States. We are not able to advise you as to these laws but you may wish to check with the Motor Vehicle Administrators of the States where you intend to sell your device.; As you surmised, there is also a relationship of Standard No. 111 t your device as an item of original equipment. Further, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act itself bears upon its permissibility as an aftermarket item. Standard No. 111 requires each passenger car to be equipped with an outside rear-view mirror on the driver's side, under paragraph S5.2.2 '...neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1.' You have not provided us with the dimensions of this device and while the photograph you enclosed showing it mounted on a Vauxhall car is inconclusive, it at least suggests that you examine this design with S5.2.2 in mind. This prohibition does not extend to an exterior-mounted mirror on the passenger side. You should also be aware that the same restriction applies to driver-side mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses other than schoolbuses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less that are equipped with mirrors that comply with the requirements of paragraph S5, an option permitted by paragraph S6.1(a) of the standard.; Although the safety standards do not apply once a vehicle is sold, th Traffic Safety Act prohibits persons other than a vehicle owner from 'rendering inoperative in whole or in part' safety equipment installed on a vehicle to achieve compliance with safety standards. The agency is concerned that a light incorporated with a rear view mirror could create glare to the driver, thus rendering the mirror partially 'inoperative' within the meaning of the standard, even if the replacement mirror otherwise complies with Standard No. 111.; You should also be aware of the other performance and locatio requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars in Standard No. 111. The outside rearview mirror on the driver's side must be of unit magnification and must comply with field of view requirements as well as the mounting requirements referred to above. Regarding the passenger's side, an outside rearview mirror is required only if the inside rearview mirror fails to meet the field of view requirements. This outside rearview mirror may be either plane or convex and must comply with the mounting and adjustability requirements in paragraph S5.3. If this outside rearview mirror is convex, it must meet the requirements for convex mirrors in paragraph S5.4.; I hope that this clarifies the relationship of the Federal standards t your device, and if there are any further questions I would be pleased to answer them.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1020OpenMr. Louis M. Cirelli, Trelleborg Rubber Company, Incorporated, P.O. Box 178, New Rochelle, New York 10802; Mr. Louis M. Cirelli Trelleborg Rubber Company Incorporated P.O. Box 178 New Rochelle New York 10802; Dear Mr. Cirelli: #This will acknowledge your letter of february 4 1970, to the National Highway Safety Bureau concerning the labeling requirements for motor vehicle tires manufactured prior to August 1, 1968. #Federal Motor Vehicle SAfety Standard No. 109 requires that all motor vehicle passenger car tires manufactured after January 1, 1968, conform to the requirements as cited. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments for your reference. #Section S4.3 specifies the labeling requirements. You will note S4.3.1 permits the sale of tires manufactured during the period January 1, 1968 to August 1, 1968, which have a label or tab affixed that incorporates the specified information. Inclusion of information on the invoice does not relive the manufacturer from affixing the proper labeling on each tire. #Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam3508OpenMr. Ernesto Rodriguez, Cariben, Inc., 144-30 Roosevelt Avenue, Suite 606, Flushing, NY 11354; Mr. Ernesto Rodriguez Cariben Inc. 144-30 Roosevelt Avenue Suite 606 Flushing NY 11354; Dear Mr. Rodriguez: This responds to your letter of September 22, 1981, asking whether an Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device. The device works by blocking the brakes and electric circuits to the motor. In trucks, the clutch is also blocked. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system.; By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals o vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' [Emphasis added.]; The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft device that work by preventing release of the brakes. However, since installation of your device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.; If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of your device, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems* (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such (sic) garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...<<<; Standard No. 105 includes various requirements that might be affecte by installation of your device. We are not able to determine from the drawings included with your letter whether compliance with the standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard. Your letter states that when your device is not in use, the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever. In addition to requirements specifically concerning stopping performance, the standard also includes requirements related to such things as a split system and the ability to withstand a series of spike stops, which might be affected by your device.; While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particula device, we do have general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.; Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether b the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under section 151 *et seq*. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1535OpenMr. M.A. Chermak,Imperial-Eastman Corporation,1440 North 24th Street,Manitowoc, Wisconsin 54220; Mr. M.A. Chermak Imperial-Eastman Corporation 1440 North 24th Street Manitowoc Wisconsin 54220; Dear Mr. Chermak:#This responds to your May 21, 1974, question whethe 'I' or 'II' should appear as a part of the label information on renewable 3/8-inch and 1/2-inch SP fittings. #It is not permissible to include type 'I' or 'II' in the labeling required in renewable fittings. S7.2 calls for the end fitting identification which appears in your letter, but S7.2 reserves the use of 'I' and 'II' for use in reusable assemblies, that is, assemblies which include reusable end fittings. The standard classifies renewable end fittings as a type of permanently-attached end fitting.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4737OpenMr. Keith D. Kroll Vice President, Engineering Hehr International, Inc. 3333 Casitas Ave P.O. Box 39160 Los Angeles, CA 90039-0160; Mr. Keith D. Kroll Vice President Engineering Hehr International Inc. 3333 Casitas Ave P.O. Box 39160 Los Angeles CA 90039-0160; "Dear Mr. Kroll: This is in response to your request for a interpretation of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). More specifically, I understand your request to refer to buses that are not school buses and that have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: '... each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' ... followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism.' S5.5.2 requires that emergency exit 'markings' be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity conditions set forth in S5.5.2. You suggested that S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Similarly, you suggested that the legibility requirements applicable to emergency exit 'markings' per S5.5.2 refer only to the emergency exit designation, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit. We disagree with your suggested interpretation. I have recently discussed NHTSA's official interpretation of these provisions in Standard No. 217 in a January 26, 1990 letter to Mr. John G. Sims. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information concerning this subject. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3158OpenMr. Thomas M. Fristoe, Director, Motor Equipment Division, TPUS, General Services Administration - Region 10, GSA Center, Auburn, WA 98002; Mr. Thomas M. Fristoe Director Motor Equipment Division TPUS General Services Administration - Region 10 GSA Center Auburn WA 98002; Dear Mr. Fristoe: This responds to your September 21, 1979, letter asking about th certification requirements for vehicles that are purchased by the government. In particular, you ask if certification is required for both new and used vehicles that are purchased and subsequently altered by either a contractor or the government.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *e seq*.) requires manufacturers to certify all new vehicles in compliance with Federal safety standards. Accordingly, all new vehicles, whether or not purchased for use by the government, must be certified in compliance with the safety standards. An exception exists for military vehicles. Used vehicles, on the other hand, need not be certified at the time they are altered. However, any repair business, dealer, or manufacturer making such an alteration must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards in effect at the time of its original manufacture. Application of these general rules to your specific questions results in certain instances when certification would be required.; In your first example, the government purchases cab and chassis unit as well as the desired bodies for the units. The bodies are subsequently attached to the chassis by a commercial installer or by the government's own shop. Since the installer or government (depending on who does the attaching) would be the final-stage manufacturer of these vehicles, the rules for the certification of new vehicles apply. Typically, a cab and chassis unit is delivered to a final-stage manufacturer with only an incomplete vehicle certification label and an incomplete vehicle document. If this is the case with your vehicles, they must have a final- stage certification label on them prior to use. That label would be attached by either the commercial business doing the installation or by the government's own shops in those instances where the government is the final-stage manufacturer.; In your second example, vehicles are procured by the government in complete form and subsequently altered by the government or by a commercial business. We assume that the vehicles when purchased were certified by their manufacturers as completed vehicles. In such cases, the government may alter the vehicles and need not attach any additional labels. Any vehicle owner may alter completed vehicles in any manner that he or she chooses. We suggest that the government take steps to ensure that alteration of its vehicles is done in such a manner as not to impair its compliance with the standards. If a commercial enterprise alters the vehicle while it is still new, that business should attach an alterer's label indicating that as altered the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standard. If a commercial business alters a used vehicle, no label is required, because the labeling requirements apply only to new vehicles.; Your third example pertains to a truck that is damaged in an acciden and the body is transferred to another vehicle. If the vehicle to which the body is transferred is new, certification would be required as outlined in the first example. If, on the other hand, the body is added to a used vehicle, no certification is required by either a commercial business or the government.; Finally, you suggest a number of additional circumstances of vehicl modifications and ask whether certification is required. Again, if the modifications pertain to new vehicles, certification labels are necessary in cases similar to those described above. If the vehicles are used, certification labels are not required. If you have further questions concerning this topic, you should contact Roger Tilton of my staff at 202-426-9511.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.