NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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

Displaying 4581 - 4590 of 16517

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam1736 Open Honorable John E. Moss, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable John E. Moss House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Moss: I am pleased to respond to your November 29, 1974, request for ou analysis of Mr. Harris Roseboom's November 8, 1974, suggestion that the 'no lockup' requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, are unnecessary as they apply to trailers used in harvesting crops on dry, level terrain in California.; We understand Mr. Roseboom's concern about the standard as it applie to trailers used for bulk transport of agricultural products. However, Standard No. 121, you will recall, established comprehensive equipment, brake actuation, retardation force, and parking brake requirements for trailers, as well as the 'no lockup' stopping distance requirements to which Mr. Roseboom refers. As a result, any exemption from the standard would mean a loss of all of these safety features on those trailers which might qualify for exemption.; Our major concern, of course, is that these trailers could be use during the non-harvest months in regular highway use, or they could be sold for highway use at a future date.; In either case they would operate under the same conditions as an other trailer on the highway. Our authority over them ends at the point of retail sale, and we know of no other way to ensure they are highway- equipped than by mandating it at the time of manufacture.; I would like to note that the delayed effective date for 'heavy hauler trailers is based on the greater complexity of brake system design on vehicles whose function dictates extendable brake lines or a low configuration which limits space for mounting new brake components. The standard becomes effective for these vehicles on September 1, 1976.; As for trucks, the effective date of March 1, 1975, is the earlies date by which adequate supplies of components will be available to build the new systems.; We would appreciate your ideas on how to make provision for specialize use of vehicles like these, while ensuring that they are not operated on the highway under the same conditions as standard highway vehicles.; I am aware of your continued interest in ensuring safety on th highways and hope that you can appreciate our dilemma in cases like the classification of agricultural bulk transport trailers.; Sincerely, James B, Gregory, Administrator
ID: aiam4534 Open Mr. R. C. Rost President Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. 7380 Highway 101 Shakopee, MN 55379-3097; Mr. R. C. Rost President Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. 7380 Highway 101 Shakopee MN 55379-3097; Dear Mr. Rost: This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1988 bringing our attention to a conflict between a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to school bus lighting, and State requirements applicable to these vehicles. You have informed us that at least two States, Iowa and Wisconsin, prohibit Head Start buses in effect from being identified as a school bus, either by words or by color, and from having the warning lamp system required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires each school bus to be equipped with a four or eight lamp signal system, in addition to other required lighting equipment. You also indicate that some regional Headstart authorities reportedly do not recognize the interpretations and regulations of this agency regarding school bus safety. You have asked that Head Start buses be exempted from the warning law requirement if a color other than school bus yellow is used. In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require the issuance of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The amendments defined 'school bus' as: a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)) (Emphasis added.) On December 29, 1977, the then Chief Counsel of this agency issued an opinion under 15 U.S.C. 1391(14) that Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools and that buses transporting children to and from those schools are defined as school buses under Federal law and accordingly are subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Specifically, the letter stated: The NHTSA interprets the term 'school' broadly, because the agency believes that this is the intent of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) which directed the creation of the school bus safety standards. Since this head start program is basically an educational program for preprimary students, the agency had determined that those facilities are schools and buses transporting children to and from them must comply with the Federal school bus safety requirements if they transport 10 or more passengers. I am sorry to inform you that we cannot grant your request for an exemption. The 1977 opinion of this agency regarding Congress' 1974 mandate remains operative. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils such as those in the Head Start program. Any manufacturer who omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, or who delivers a bus with the warning lamp system inoperative, is in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject to civil penalties. The manufacturer is also subject to the provisions of the Act for notification and remedy of the noncompliance with Standard No. 108. The effect of the preemption provision in section 103(d) of the Act (15?U.S.C. 1392(d)) is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that State standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light requirement as a 'higher standard of performance.' Thus, regardless of how a State defines 'school bus,' a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with a school bus warning system that is designed and wired as required by paragraph S4.l.4 of Standard No. 108. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads, those State laws may not override Federal laws. The effect of Federal preemption is that the school bus warning system must continue to operate as required by paragraph S4.l.4(b)(ii), and a State may not directly or indirectly require tampering with that equipment in order to comply with State usage laws. We are providing copies of this letter to the officials in Iowa and Wisconsin mentioned in your letter. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: J.P. Golvinaux Dwight R. Carlson Frank Potts Donald Schneider;
ID: aiam1366 Open Mr. W.G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, Georgia 31030; Mr. W.G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley Georgia 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in response to your letter of December 7, 1973, requesting ruling on whether you will be allowed to sell warning flags after January 1, 1974. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 prohibits the manufacture and sale of non-conforming warning devices manufactured after January 1, 1974. Thus, you would be allowed to sell such devices, even after January 1st, so long as they were not manufactured after that date.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4164 Open Mr. Davis C. Thekkanath, Sr. Supervising Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1986, asking for a waive from compliance with the headlamp mounting height requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to prototype and future production trucks you have developed for military application.; No Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicl manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.7(c)). This means that the headlamps on production models of your military truck may be mounted higher than 54 inches without creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. If the truck is also sold for commercial applications, however, it would be required to conform with the 54-inch limitation.; Although the exception quoted above applies to vehicles manufacture for sale, the agency has no objection to limited use on the public roads of nonconforming prototype vehicles that have been developed expressly for sale to the Armed Forces of the United States.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2663 Open Mr. E.M. Ryan, Design Engineer, The Coachette Company, P.O. Box 1427, Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. E.M. Ryan Design Engineer The Coachette Company P.O. Box 1427 Highway 65 South Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your August 19, 1977, letter asking whether Standar No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, permits the use of two rear doors for the determination of the size of the required unobstructed rear exit opening.; The standard states in S5.4.2.2 that : [a] school bus with a GVWR o 10,000 pounds or less shall conform to all the provisions of S5.4.2, except that the parallelepiped dimension for the opening of the rear emergency door or doors shall be....' This section specifically allows the determination of the required rear opening through the use of either one or two doors. Therefore, your interpretation that the standard permits the use of two rear doors is correct.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3971 Open Mr. Yoshikazu Ito, Manager, Technical Operations Section, Overseas Operations Dept., Tokai Rika Co., Ltd., Oguchi-Cho, Aichi Pref., 480-01, Japan; Mr. Yoshikazu Ito Manager Technical Operations Section Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. Oguchi-Cho Aichi Pref. 480-01 Japan; Dear Mr. Ito: Thank you for your letter concerning the buckle release requirements o Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding to it. You asked for an interpretation of the requirement in S4.5.3.3(a) of the standard that automatic belts must have an emergency release mechanism that is 'readily accessible to a seated occupant.' The following discussion addresses the specific questions you asked.; The purpose of the 'readily accessible' requirement is to ensure that seated occupant can quickly and easily grasp and then release the buckle in an emergency. You explained that you have been reviewing the accessibility of possible installation locations for the emergency release by using a 5th percentile female and 50th percentile male test dummy in various seating positions. You ask whether in determining if the buckle is readily accessible, you can move the pelvic portion of the test dummy or move the seat back to permit the grasping of the buckle.; The purpose of S4.5.3.3(a) is twofold. First, it is intended to mak sure automatic belts are adjustable to fit a wide range of vehicle occupants, as specified in S7.1 of the standard. In addition, it is meant to ensure that the emergency release mechanism for the automatic belt is readily accessible to that same range of occupants. Thus, the release mechanism should be accessible to those occupants with the seat in any design position without the occupant having to take special steps, such as moving the seat back, to grasp and operate the release. I noted that the drawing you attached to your letter indicates that your emergency release is located within the latchplate access zone specified in S7.4.4 of the standard. Although S7.4.4 does not apply to the emergency release mechanism of automatic belts, its purpose is to make it easy for occupants to reach the latchplate of a safety belt system. We would consider any emergency release mechanism required by S4.5.3.3(a) that is within the latchplate access zone of S7.4.4 to be readily accessible as long as the occupant does not have to take any special steps to grasp and operate the release.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2399 Open Mr. Byron A. Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1976, in which you as whether emergency exits required by a State beyond those required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, are subject to the performance requirements outlined in S4(b) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection.; Standard No. 220 requires that all emergency exits provided i accordance with Standard No. 217 must meet certain minimum performance levels during and after the simulated rollover test. Additional emergency exits mandated by State law are not exits 'provided in accordance with Standard No. 217' and, therefore, would not be subject to the requirements of S4(b) of Standard No. 220.; You should note that Standard No. 217, in addition to mandating th provision of certain school bus doors and exits under S5.2, also regulates certain aspects of all emergency exits under other provisions of the regulation.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2233 Open Mr. Joseph M. Connell, Truck & Fleet Manager, Maurice J. Sopp & Son, 5801 Pacific Boulevard, Huntington Park, CA 90255; Mr. Joseph M. Connell Truck & Fleet Manager Maurice J. Sopp & Son 5801 Pacific Boulevard Huntington Park CA 90255; Dear Mr. Connell: This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1976, concerning th sale of a 1975 Chevrolet Step Van that has been modified by the addition of a 'boiler' assembly.; SS 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification provide that the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) appearing on the certification label; >>>shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rate cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity... <<<; Further, S 567.7 provides that a person who, before the first purchas in good faith for purposes other than resale, alters a previously certified vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid shall affix to the vehicle an additional label that certifies the modified weight ratings and the vehicle's continued compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your letter indicates that the unloaded weight of the van, as altere by Steamaster Boiler Co., exceeds the original 10,000 pound GVWR. From this information, it appears that there has been a violation of the Certification regulation. While we would have to investigate your role as the dealer in this transaction to determine your precise liability, we advise you not to sell the vehicle in its present condition.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3072 Open Mr. Mike Champagne, 6936 East 75th Street South, Tulsa, OK 74133; Mr. Mike Champagne 6936 East 75th Street South Tulsa OK 74133; Dear Mr. Champagne: This is in response to your telephone conversations of July 13, 1979 with Mr. Steve Wood of my office, in which you requested a general explanation of the Federal law concerning auxiliary gasoline tanks and the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles to propane-powered vehicles.; The following discussion sets forth the implications of thes activities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits.; Before getting into the legalities of these installations an conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles which are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increase the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present.; The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles.; Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate customer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.R. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7).; Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act).; With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is tha not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also.; If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fue system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline- powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane- powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75.; After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 ...<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufacture in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974) (sic). Such a reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.; There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection wit FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be governed by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars.; The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle s that is has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A).; As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 et seq. o the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well (sic) persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 et seq. provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term 'manufacturer' includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers.; Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or make propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation.; Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and th propane systems would all be treated as 'replacement equipment.' Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment.; Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provid notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1000 per violation.; Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 et seq. Since the term 'manufacturer' is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble, or import new vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers.; Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of th liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary of replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort.; I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have an further questions I will be happy to answer them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3588 Open Mr. William J. Benzie, Corporate Fleet Coordinator, The Continental Insurance Companies, Eighty Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038; Mr. William J. Benzie Corporate Fleet Coordinator The Continental Insurance Companies Eighty Maiden Lane New York NY 10038; Dear Mr. Benzie: This responds to your recent letter asking about Federal regulation pertaining to automotive glass and to windshield repair kits. You are particularly interested in the Novus windshield repair method and ask if it has been approved by the agency.; The agency has issued Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (4 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of that standard for your information. There are no standards or regulations specifically governing windshield repair methods. However, I am enclosing a letter of interpretation which the agency issued in 1975 regarding the Novus method of windshield repair. I am also enclosing a letter of interpretation which discusses the general responsibilities of persons who modify or repair vehicles, including windshields, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Please look closely at the third and fourth paragraphs of that letter.; Please note that the agency does not grant prior approval of any moto vehicle, motor vehicle equipment or method of vehicle repair. It is the responsibility of the vehicle or equipment manufacturer to certify that its products are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and regulations.; I hope the enclosed information will answer all of your questions. 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.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam1736 Open Honorable John E. Moss, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable John E. Moss House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Moss: I am pleased to respond to your November 29, 1974, request for ou analysis of Mr. Harris Roseboom's November 8, 1974, suggestion that the 'no lockup' requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, are unnecessary as they apply to trailers used in harvesting crops on dry, level terrain in California.; We understand Mr. Roseboom's concern about the standard as it applie to trailers used for bulk transport of agricultural products. However, Standard No. 121, you will recall, established comprehensive equipment, brake actuation, retardation force, and parking brake requirements for trailers, as well as the 'no lockup' stopping distance requirements to which Mr. Roseboom refers. As a result, any exemption from the standard would mean a loss of all of these safety features on those trailers which might qualify for exemption.; Our major concern, of course, is that these trailers could be use during the non-harvest months in regular highway use, or they could be sold for highway use at a future date.; In either case they would operate under the same conditions as an other trailer on the highway. Our authority over them ends at the point of retail sale, and we know of no other way to ensure they are highway- equipped than by mandating it at the time of manufacture.; I would like to note that the delayed effective date for 'heavy hauler trailers is based on the greater complexity of brake system design on vehicles whose function dictates extendable brake lines or a low configuration which limits space for mounting new brake components. The standard becomes effective for these vehicles on September 1, 1976.; As for trucks, the effective date of March 1, 1975, is the earlies date by which adequate supplies of components will be available to build the new systems.; We would appreciate your ideas on how to make provision for specialize use of vehicles like these, while ensuring that they are not operated on the highway under the same conditions as standard highway vehicles.; I am aware of your continued interest in ensuring safety on th highways and hope that you can appreciate our dilemma in cases like the classification of agricultural bulk transport trailers.; Sincerely, James B, Gregory, Administrator
ID: aiam4534 Open Mr. R. C. Rost President Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. 7380 Highway 101 Shakopee, MN 55379-3097; Mr. R. C. Rost President Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. 7380 Highway 101 Shakopee MN 55379-3097; Dear Mr. Rost: This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1988 bringing our attention to a conflict between a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to school bus lighting, and State requirements applicable to these vehicles. You have informed us that at least two States, Iowa and Wisconsin, prohibit Head Start buses in effect from being identified as a school bus, either by words or by color, and from having the warning lamp system required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires each school bus to be equipped with a four or eight lamp signal system, in addition to other required lighting equipment. You also indicate that some regional Headstart authorities reportedly do not recognize the interpretations and regulations of this agency regarding school bus safety. You have asked that Head Start buses be exempted from the warning law requirement if a color other than school bus yellow is used. In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require the issuance of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The amendments defined 'school bus' as: a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)) (Emphasis added.) On December 29, 1977, the then Chief Counsel of this agency issued an opinion under 15 U.S.C. 1391(14) that Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools and that buses transporting children to and from those schools are defined as school buses under Federal law and accordingly are subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Specifically, the letter stated: The NHTSA interprets the term 'school' broadly, because the agency believes that this is the intent of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) which directed the creation of the school bus safety standards. Since this head start program is basically an educational program for preprimary students, the agency had determined that those facilities are schools and buses transporting children to and from them must comply with the Federal school bus safety requirements if they transport 10 or more passengers. I am sorry to inform you that we cannot grant your request for an exemption. The 1977 opinion of this agency regarding Congress' 1974 mandate remains operative. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils such as those in the Head Start program. Any manufacturer who omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, or who delivers a bus with the warning lamp system inoperative, is in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject to civil penalties. The manufacturer is also subject to the provisions of the Act for notification and remedy of the noncompliance with Standard No. 108. The effect of the preemption provision in section 103(d) of the Act (15?U.S.C. 1392(d)) is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that State standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light requirement as a 'higher standard of performance.' Thus, regardless of how a State defines 'school bus,' a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with a school bus warning system that is designed and wired as required by paragraph S4.l.4 of Standard No. 108. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads, those State laws may not override Federal laws. The effect of Federal preemption is that the school bus warning system must continue to operate as required by paragraph S4.l.4(b)(ii), and a State may not directly or indirectly require tampering with that equipment in order to comply with State usage laws. We are providing copies of this letter to the officials in Iowa and Wisconsin mentioned in your letter. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: J.P. Golvinaux Dwight R. Carlson Frank Potts Donald Schneider;
ID: aiam1366 Open Mr. W.G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, Georgia 31030; Mr. W.G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley Georgia 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in response to your letter of December 7, 1973, requesting ruling on whether you will be allowed to sell warning flags after January 1, 1974. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 prohibits the manufacture and sale of non-conforming warning devices manufactured after January 1, 1974. Thus, you would be allowed to sell such devices, even after January 1st, so long as they were not manufactured after that date.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4164 Open Mr. Davis C. Thekkanath, Sr. Supervising Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1986, asking for a waive from compliance with the headlamp mounting height requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to prototype and future production trucks you have developed for military application.; No Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicl manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.7(c)). This means that the headlamps on production models of your military truck may be mounted higher than 54 inches without creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. If the truck is also sold for commercial applications, however, it would be required to conform with the 54-inch limitation.; Although the exception quoted above applies to vehicles manufacture for sale, the agency has no objection to limited use on the public roads of nonconforming prototype vehicles that have been developed expressly for sale to the Armed Forces of the United States.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2663 Open Mr. E.M. Ryan, Design Engineer, The Coachette Company, P.O. Box 1427, Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. E.M. Ryan Design Engineer The Coachette Company P.O. Box 1427 Highway 65 South Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your August 19, 1977, letter asking whether Standar No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, permits the use of two rear doors for the determination of the size of the required unobstructed rear exit opening.; The standard states in S5.4.2.2 that : [a] school bus with a GVWR o 10,000 pounds or less shall conform to all the provisions of S5.4.2, except that the parallelepiped dimension for the opening of the rear emergency door or doors shall be....' This section specifically allows the determination of the required rear opening through the use of either one or two doors. Therefore, your interpretation that the standard permits the use of two rear doors is correct.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3971 Open Mr. Yoshikazu Ito, Manager, Technical Operations Section, Overseas Operations Dept., Tokai Rika Co., Ltd., Oguchi-Cho, Aichi Pref., 480-01, Japan; Mr. Yoshikazu Ito Manager Technical Operations Section Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. Oguchi-Cho Aichi Pref. 480-01 Japan; Dear Mr. Ito: Thank you for your letter concerning the buckle release requirements o Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding to it. You asked for an interpretation of the requirement in S4.5.3.3(a) of the standard that automatic belts must have an emergency release mechanism that is 'readily accessible to a seated occupant.' The following discussion addresses the specific questions you asked.; The purpose of the 'readily accessible' requirement is to ensure that seated occupant can quickly and easily grasp and then release the buckle in an emergency. You explained that you have been reviewing the accessibility of possible installation locations for the emergency release by using a 5th percentile female and 50th percentile male test dummy in various seating positions. You ask whether in determining if the buckle is readily accessible, you can move the pelvic portion of the test dummy or move the seat back to permit the grasping of the buckle.; The purpose of S4.5.3.3(a) is twofold. First, it is intended to mak sure automatic belts are adjustable to fit a wide range of vehicle occupants, as specified in S7.1 of the standard. In addition, it is meant to ensure that the emergency release mechanism for the automatic belt is readily accessible to that same range of occupants. Thus, the release mechanism should be accessible to those occupants with the seat in any design position without the occupant having to take special steps, such as moving the seat back, to grasp and operate the release. I noted that the drawing you attached to your letter indicates that your emergency release is located within the latchplate access zone specified in S7.4.4 of the standard. Although S7.4.4 does not apply to the emergency release mechanism of automatic belts, its purpose is to make it easy for occupants to reach the latchplate of a safety belt system. We would consider any emergency release mechanism required by S4.5.3.3(a) that is within the latchplate access zone of S7.4.4 to be readily accessible as long as the occupant does not have to take any special steps to grasp and operate the release.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2399 Open Mr. Byron A. Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1976, in which you as whether emergency exits required by a State beyond those required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, are subject to the performance requirements outlined in S4(b) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection.; Standard No. 220 requires that all emergency exits provided i accordance with Standard No. 217 must meet certain minimum performance levels during and after the simulated rollover test. Additional emergency exits mandated by State law are not exits 'provided in accordance with Standard No. 217' and, therefore, would not be subject to the requirements of S4(b) of Standard No. 220.; You should note that Standard No. 217, in addition to mandating th provision of certain school bus doors and exits under S5.2, also regulates certain aspects of all emergency exits under other provisions of the regulation.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2233 Open Mr. Joseph M. Connell, Truck & Fleet Manager, Maurice J. Sopp & Son, 5801 Pacific Boulevard, Huntington Park, CA 90255; Mr. Joseph M. Connell Truck & Fleet Manager Maurice J. Sopp & Son 5801 Pacific Boulevard Huntington Park CA 90255; Dear Mr. Connell: This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1976, concerning th sale of a 1975 Chevrolet Step Van that has been modified by the addition of a 'boiler' assembly.; SS 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification provide that the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) appearing on the certification label; >>>shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rate cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity... <<<; Further, S 567.7 provides that a person who, before the first purchas in good faith for purposes other than resale, alters a previously certified vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid shall affix to the vehicle an additional label that certifies the modified weight ratings and the vehicle's continued compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your letter indicates that the unloaded weight of the van, as altere by Steamaster Boiler Co., exceeds the original 10,000 pound GVWR. From this information, it appears that there has been a violation of the Certification regulation. While we would have to investigate your role as the dealer in this transaction to determine your precise liability, we advise you not to sell the vehicle in its present condition.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3072 Open Mr. Mike Champagne, 6936 East 75th Street South, Tulsa, OK 74133; Mr. Mike Champagne 6936 East 75th Street South Tulsa OK 74133; Dear Mr. Champagne: This is in response to your telephone conversations of July 13, 1979 with Mr. Steve Wood of my office, in which you requested a general explanation of the Federal law concerning auxiliary gasoline tanks and the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles to propane-powered vehicles.; The following discussion sets forth the implications of thes activities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits.; Before getting into the legalities of these installations an conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles which are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increase the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present.; The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles.; Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate customer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.R. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7).; Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act).; With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is tha not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also.; If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fue system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline- powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane- powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75.; After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 ...<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufacture in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974) (sic). Such a reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.; There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection wit FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be governed by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars.; The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle s that is has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A).; As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 et seq. o the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well (sic) persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 et seq. provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term 'manufacturer' includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers.; Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or make propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation.; Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and th propane systems would all be treated as 'replacement equipment.' Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment.; Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provid notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1000 per violation.; Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 et seq. Since the term 'manufacturer' is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble, or import new vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers.; Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of th liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary of replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort.; I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have an further questions I will be happy to answer them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3588 Open Mr. William J. Benzie, Corporate Fleet Coordinator, The Continental Insurance Companies, Eighty Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038; Mr. William J. Benzie Corporate Fleet Coordinator The Continental Insurance Companies Eighty Maiden Lane New York NY 10038; Dear Mr. Benzie: This responds to your recent letter asking about Federal regulation pertaining to automotive glass and to windshield repair kits. You are particularly interested in the Novus windshield repair method and ask if it has been approved by the agency.; The agency has issued Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (4 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of that standard for your information. There are no standards or regulations specifically governing windshield repair methods. However, I am enclosing a letter of interpretation which the agency issued in 1975 regarding the Novus method of windshield repair. I am also enclosing a letter of interpretation which discusses the general responsibilities of persons who modify or repair vehicles, including windshields, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Please look closely at the third and fourth paragraphs of that letter.; Please note that the agency does not grant prior approval of any moto vehicle, motor vehicle equipment or method of vehicle repair. It is the responsibility of the vehicle or equipment manufacturer to certify that its products are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and regulations.; I hope the enclosed information will answer all of your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam1736

ID: aiam4534

ID: aiam1366

ID: aiam4164

ID: aiam2663

ID: aiam3971

ID: aiam2399

ID: aiam2233

ID: aiam3072

ID: aiam3588

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?