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 7121 - 7130 of 16490

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam4175 Open Mr. J. L. Hendricks, Manager, Product Environmental Management, Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Box 3005, Columbus, IN 47202-3005; Mr. J. L. Hendricks Manager Product Environmental Management Cummins Engine Company Inc. Box 3005 Columbus IN 47202-3005; Dear Mr. Hendricks: This responds to your letter regarding the difficulty, during a ongoing safety defect campaign (NHTSA 85E-016), of locating current owners of heavy-duty diesel engines and replacement engine products which are installed in trucks selected by the original equipment manufacturer. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; The information contained in your letter and in telephone conversation with agency staff indicates your concern with the delay in your efforts to locate the current owners in Connecticut of Cummins engines and replacement equipment involved in this voluntary recall. This problem arose when a large number of original recall notices mailed to the most recent known purchasers of this equipment were returned to you. You then contacted each State and requested a search of their motor vehicle files using the truck vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) in order to locate the current owners. We understand that special procedures followed by Connecticut to protect individual privacy have led to delays in your obtaining the names and addresses of current owners.; In your letter, you mention Connecticut's practice of requiring formal declaration of VIN's and a justification for conducting a search of their vehicle registration files. While we agree with the statement in your letter that each State has the right to safeguard individual privacy and place restrictions on access to lists of motor vehicle owners, we also regret the delay, which is apparently caused by Connecticut's procedure in notifying the current owners of the equipment involved in this campaign.; You indicate that this delay is increased by Connecticut's practice o requiring the services of a third party agency who, by contractual agreement, obtains the registration information and sells it to the party conducting the safety recall campaign.; These difficulties do not, of course, diminish the responsibility o manufacturers to conduct notification campaigns. We appreciate the difficulty of locating current owners of trucks with original and replacement Cummins equipment, and commend your efforts to locate them. However, this agency cannot interfere in the efforts of a State to protect the privacy of Connecticut motor vehicle owners. Further, this agency cannot interfere in a contractual agreement between a State and a third party.; You indicate that the task of locating current owners is additionall complicated by at least two factors. First, we understand that Cummins receives a list of VIN's from the original vehicle manufacturer with the names and addresses of the first purchasers of trucks on which your equipment is installed. These purchasers may or may not be the actual users of the trucks. Second, the owners/operators of the trucks on which these engines and replacement equipment are installed tend to be very mobile in their operations and registration practices. The result has been a large number of safety-related defect notices returned to your company, because the current owners cannot be located.; In your letter, you also request that this agency write to th Connecticut Bureau of Motor Vehicles and solicit their assistance in negotiating with Cummins a program to enable your company to maintain an on-going system to obtain vehicle registration on a timely basis. We think that such a program could be appropriate during a specific safety recall campaign. While not wishing to interfere with a State's decision to set reasonable procedures to safeguard lists of vehicle owner names and addresses, the agency believes that a request to Connecticut to assist you could be helpful in locating the current owners of Cummins equipment involved in this recall campaign. For these reasons, NHTSA, by separate letter, is requesting the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles to provide assistance to Cummins, as expeditiously as possible, in supplying the names and addresses of the equipment owners requested by your company.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2444 Open Charles O. Verrill, Jr., Esq., Messrs. Patton, Boggs, & Blow, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Charles O. Verrill Jr. Esq. Messrs. Patton Boggs & Blow 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1976, to th Administrator with respect to the Ryan tote- trailer manufactured by your client, Outboard Marine Corporation. You have asked whether the tote-trailer is a 'motor vehicle' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), if the answer is affirmative you have asked whether the tote trailer is a 'pole trailer' as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b), if the answer is negative, you have asked that any failure to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; In our opinion the tote- trailer is a 'motor vehicle' within th meaning of S 1391(3). Although the equipment that it carries is intended for off-road use, the tote trailer with load is hauled from place to place by motor vehicles, as depicted in the sales literature, that operate on the public roads. It has been our continuing opinion that vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. As your letter indicates, the trailer is purchased by rental agencies and 'is likely to be towed on the public roads and highways.' We therefore have concluded that the tote trailer is 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways' and falls within the coverage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; It is also our conclusion that the tote trailer is not a 'pole trailer as defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b). The tote trailer is attached to the towing vehicle by a conventional tongue and not 'by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle.' In addition, the load does not appear capable of sustaining itself as a beam between the supporting connections.; Therefore, it appears from your letter that all tote trailer manufactured since January 1, 1969, have not been equipped with lighting devices required by 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, that those manufactured since January 1, 1972, have not been provided with GAWR and GVWR figures on the certification labels required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and that those manufactured since September 1, 1976, may have not been equipped with tires required by 49 CFR 571.120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.; If your client wishes to submit a petition for inconsequentiality w request that it follow the format in proposed 49 CFR Part 566, copy enclosed. You may refer any questions on this matter to Mr. Vinson of my staff.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2954 Open Mr. William J. Baldridge, City Manager, City of Royal Oak, P.O. Box 64, Royal Oak, MI 48068; Mr. William J. Baldridge City Manager City of Royal Oak P.O. Box 64 Royal Oak MI 48068; Dear Mr. Baldridge: This responds to your December 21, 1978, letter asking the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit the City of Royal Oak, Michigan to obtain a waiver from the safety standards applicable to one of its vehicles. In particular, you ask that several standards be waived because the vehicle, as altered by the addition of an aerial bucket, would no longer comply with them.; Your letter does not clearly indicate the cause of the noncomplianc with Federal safety standards. The NHTSA concludes that the noncompliance probably arises because the altered vehicle will exceed the 'unloaded vehicle weight' that is used in determining its compliance with several of the agency's standards. Although the agency appreciates the problems that your city has with obtaining a complying vehicle, the NHTSA has no authority to grant exemptions from safety standards for individual vehicle users.; The manufacturer and alterer of the vehicle are responsible fo certifying that it complies with all Federal safety standards. The Federal government does not issue certificates that any vehicle complies with safety standards. The manufacturer or alterer, as part of its certification, must insure that its vehicle does not exceed the weight restrictions that are appropriate for the vehicle. Accordingly, if a vehicle alterer has informed you that an alteration cannot be done without exceeding the manufacturer's established weight restrictions, then the alterer could not truthfully certify the vehicle for compliance.; The NHTSA regrets the problems caused to Royal Oak by th implementation of the safety standards. The agency has received a petition from the Truck Body and Equipment Association asking for rulemaking to prevent future problems such as yours. The NHTSA currently is evaluating that petition. To resolve your problem, the agency suggests that you consider selling the chassis and utility body that you currently own and purchase another chassis and body that has a sufficient 'unloaded vehicle weight' to accommodate the alteration you intend. This will enable the vehicle that you finally obtain to comply with safety standards. These standards improve vehicle safety, and we are sure that Royal Oak would not want to purchase an unsafe vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2955 Open Mr. William J. Baldridge, City Manager, City of Royal Oak, P.O. Box 64, Royal Oak, MI 48068; Mr. William J. Baldridge City Manager City of Royal Oak P.O. Box 64 Royal Oak MI 48068; Dear Mr. Baldridge: This responds to your December 21, 1978, letter asking the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit the City of Royal Oak, Michigan to obtain a waiver from the safety standards applicable to one of its vehicles. In particular, you ask that several standards be waived because the vehicle, as altered by the addition of an aerial bucket, would no longer comply with them.; Your letter does not clearly indicate the cause of the noncomplianc with Federal safety standards. The NHTSA concludes that the noncompliance probably arises because the altered vehicle will exceed the 'unloaded vehicle weight' that is used in determining its compliance with several of the agency's standards. Although the agency appreciates the problems that your city has with obtaining a complying vehicle, the NHTSA has no authority to grant exemptions from safety standards for individual vehicle users.; The manufacturer and alterer of the vehicle are responsible fo certifying that it complies with all Federal safety standards. The Federal government does not issue certificates that any vehicle complies with safety standards. The manufacturer or alterer, as part of its certification, must insure that its vehicle does not exceed the weight restrictions that are appropriate for the vehicle. Accordingly, if a vehicle alterer has informed you that an alteration cannot be done without exceeding the manufacturer's established weight restrictions, then the alterer could not truthfully certify the vehicle for compliance.; The NHTSA regrets the problems caused to Royal Oak by th implementation of the safety standards. The agency has received a petition from the Truck Body and Equipment Association asking for rulemaking to prevent future problems such as yours. The NHTSA currently is evaluating that petition. To resolve your problem, the agency suggests that you consider selling the chassis and utility body that you currently own and purchase another chassis and body that has a sufficient 'unloaded vehicle weight' to accommodate the alteration you intend. This will enable the vehicle that you finally obtain to comply with safety standards. These standards improve vehicle safety, and we are sure that Royal Oak would not want to purchase an unsafe vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5069 Open Mr. James A. Westphal Oshkosh Chassis Division Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2508 Oshkosh, WI 54903; Mr. James A. Westphal Oshkosh Chassis Division Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2508 Oshkosh WI 54903; Dear Mr. Westphal: This letter responds to your inquiry about whic Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would be applicable to certain incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab) that you manufacture for motor homes. You anticipate that the motor homes will have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds but less than 26,000 pounds. Your letter indicated that Oshkosh plans to install brake systems in the two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disc brakes at each wheel. You stated that this system is commonly known as 'air-over-hydraulic.' The following is in response to your four specific questions: 1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121 applicable to trucks? The answer to question number one is yes. The agency classifies air-over- hydraulic brake systems as air brake systems. Accordingly, vehicles equipped with air-over-hydraulic brake systems are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121. I am enclosing a July 20, 1984 interpretation letter to Ms. Margaret Moore Oba which discusses this issue at length. 2. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles? The answer to question number two is no. Standard No. 105 only applies to vehicles with hydraulic brake systems. Since your system is air-over- hydraulic, it is considered to be an air brake system and not a hydraulic brake system. 3. If Standard No. 121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disc brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system-- dynamometer tests? The answer to question number three is yes. The requirements of S5.4 are among the requirements specified in Standard No. 121 for each vehicle equipped with air brakes. 4. If compliance to parts of both Standards 121 and 105 is required, must the system meet the requirements of the following sections in Standard No. 105: S5.1.2 Partial Failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp. As indicated above, air-over hydraulic brake systems are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 105. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure;
ID: aiam0018 Open Mr. Roddy Williams Container Enterprise 3900 Paris Road P.O. Box 1098 Chalmette, LA 70044-1098; Mr. Roddy Williams Container Enterprise 3900 Paris Road P.O. Box 1098 Chalmette LA 70044-1098; "Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your letter that asked whethe your company is permitted to assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115) to trailers that it 'remanufactures' from previously used trailers. The answer is that a company that performs the remanufacturing operations described in your letter may assign a new VIN to its remanufactured trailers. By doing so, however, the trailers would be treated as newly manufactured trailers for the purposes of this agency's safety standards and regulations. Among other things, this would mean that your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with all applicable safety standards in effect as of the date of the remanufacturing operations, including the lighting, tire, and brake standards applicable to new trailers. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your company, Container Enterprise, works on trailers that were used to carry cargo containers. You stated that approximately 90% of the trailers that Container Enterprise works on were originally built between 1974 and 1979. Container Enterprise takes used container chassis that are 23 feet long and removes the axles and half of the crossmembers on the original frame. Container Enterprise then manufactures a 12 foot subframe and reinstalls the used axles on this subframe. The subframe is then attached to the container chassis, extending its chassis length to 27 feet. The conversion allows the chassis to slide open or closed. You stated that upon completion of this process, Container Enterprise will issue 'a new manufacturer plate with a new VIN number' and date of remanufacture. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 115, which applies to all new vehicles. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that vehicles manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the vehicle manufacturer and S4.5 specifies that the assigned VIN shall appear clearly and indelibly on the vehicle. Thus, the only person that can assign a VIN to a vehicle is the vehicle's manufacturer. The question then is whether your company's 'remanufacturing' operations are substantial enough that the remanufactured trailers should be considered to be new vehicles and the manufacturer of those vehicles would be your company, instead of the original manufacturer of the trailer. NHTSA's regulations specifically address the question of when trailers produced by combining new components (the subframe fabricated by your company) and used components (the parts of the used container chassis) are considered to be new trailers. 49 CFR 571.7(f) states that when new and used components are used in trailer manufacture, the trailer will be considered 'newly manufactured' unless the following three conditions are met. First, the trailer running gear assembly, which includes the axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension, is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer. Second, the existing trailer's identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. Third, the existing trailer is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle. You have stated that your company would assign new VINs to the trailers it remanufactures. Upon doing so, the second condition in 571.7(f), continuing use of the original VIN, would not be met. Therefore, the trailers 'remanufactured' by your company would be considered to be newly manufactured. Your company, as the manufacturer, must certify that these trailers comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of the remanufacture. This means that, in addition to complying with the 1991 requirements of Standard No. 115, your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with the 1991 versions of the lighting standard (Standard No. 108), the tire and rim standard (Standard No. 120), and the air brake standard (Standard No. 121), to name a few examples of applicable standards. To assist you in making any such certifications, I am enclosing a brochure that briefly describes each of the safety standards and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles that explains how to get copies of our standards and regulations. Your letter also referred to U. S. Department of the Treasury Publication 510 on Excise Taxes. We can only tell you that your remanufactured trailers with new VINs would be considered new vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any questions about the trailers for purposes of excise taxes, you should contact the Internal Revenue Service. Their District Office for Louisiana is located at 500 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA 70130. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";
ID: aiam3738 Open Mr. Gary Richards, VIRACON, Inc., 800 Park Drive, Owatonna, MN 55060; Mr. Gary Richards VIRACON Inc. 800 Park Drive Owatonna MN 55060; Dear Mr. Richards: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning the agency's regulations and standards which would be applicable to a sunroof kit that you plan to manufacture as an item of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. As I understand it, you only plan to manufacture the sun roof kit and have no plans to install the sun roof in vehicles. You were, however, interested in any regulations or standards affecting the installation of such a sun roof kit.; Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies performance an location requirements for all glazing materials used on motor vehicles, whether as original equipment or as replacement (aftermarket) equipment. As a manufacturer or fabricator of glazing you would have to certify that the glazing used in your sun roof complies with all applicable requirements of the standard, a copy of which is enclosed.; Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have specifi responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety-related defects in their products. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. A copy of the Act and the applicable defect regulations are enclosed. In addition, Part 556, Manufacturer Identification, requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. A copy of Part 556 is enclosed.; If a sun roof is added to a vehicle before sale of the vehicle to it first purchaser, the vehicle alterer is required by Part 567 of our regulations to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. A copy of Part 567 is enclosed. If the sun roof is added by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop after the sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, the vehicle does not have to be recertified. Such businesses are, however, prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. Thus, for example, they would have to ensure that they do not install the sun roof in such a way that the vehicle no longer complies with Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, a copy of which is enclosed.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3158 Open Mr. 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
ID: aiam3157 Open Mr. 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
ID: aiam3043 Open Mr. Robert B. Kurre, Director of Engineering, Wayne Corporation, Industries Road, Post Office Box 1447, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering Wayne Corporation Industries Road Post Office Box 1447 Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your June 11, 1979, letter asking whether sid push-out window exits in school buses installed pursuant to State requirements must be marked in accordance with the emergency exit requirements of S5.5.3 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In particular, you want to know whether these additional exits must be labeled on the bus exterior.; Section S5.5.3 of the standard requires that '[e]ach school bu emergency exit provided in accordance with S5.2.3.1 shall have the designation....on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus. Section S5.2.3.1, in turn, requires that school buses be equipped with a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push-out window. Taken together, these two sections require that the required rear or side emergency door or rear push-out window must be appropriately marked on the inside and outside of the bus.; As the agency has frequently stated, all exits installed in schoo buses beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 need not comply with the exit requirements applicable to school bus exits. All additional exits must comply, however, with the other sections of the standard applicable to non-school buses. In this case, the additional exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with Sections S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of the standard. Neither of these paragraphs requires the exit to be marked on the bus exterior.; 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: aiam4175 Open Mr. J. L. Hendricks, Manager, Product Environmental Management, Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Box 3005, Columbus, IN 47202-3005; Mr. J. L. Hendricks Manager Product Environmental Management Cummins Engine Company Inc. Box 3005 Columbus IN 47202-3005; Dear Mr. Hendricks: This responds to your letter regarding the difficulty, during a ongoing safety defect campaign (NHTSA 85E-016), of locating current owners of heavy-duty diesel engines and replacement engine products which are installed in trucks selected by the original equipment manufacturer. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; The information contained in your letter and in telephone conversation with agency staff indicates your concern with the delay in your efforts to locate the current owners in Connecticut of Cummins engines and replacement equipment involved in this voluntary recall. This problem arose when a large number of original recall notices mailed to the most recent known purchasers of this equipment were returned to you. You then contacted each State and requested a search of their motor vehicle files using the truck vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) in order to locate the current owners. We understand that special procedures followed by Connecticut to protect individual privacy have led to delays in your obtaining the names and addresses of current owners.; In your letter, you mention Connecticut's practice of requiring formal declaration of VIN's and a justification for conducting a search of their vehicle registration files. While we agree with the statement in your letter that each State has the right to safeguard individual privacy and place restrictions on access to lists of motor vehicle owners, we also regret the delay, which is apparently caused by Connecticut's procedure in notifying the current owners of the equipment involved in this campaign.; You indicate that this delay is increased by Connecticut's practice o requiring the services of a third party agency who, by contractual agreement, obtains the registration information and sells it to the party conducting the safety recall campaign.; These difficulties do not, of course, diminish the responsibility o manufacturers to conduct notification campaigns. We appreciate the difficulty of locating current owners of trucks with original and replacement Cummins equipment, and commend your efforts to locate them. However, this agency cannot interfere in the efforts of a State to protect the privacy of Connecticut motor vehicle owners. Further, this agency cannot interfere in a contractual agreement between a State and a third party.; You indicate that the task of locating current owners is additionall complicated by at least two factors. First, we understand that Cummins receives a list of VIN's from the original vehicle manufacturer with the names and addresses of the first purchasers of trucks on which your equipment is installed. These purchasers may or may not be the actual users of the trucks. Second, the owners/operators of the trucks on which these engines and replacement equipment are installed tend to be very mobile in their operations and registration practices. The result has been a large number of safety-related defect notices returned to your company, because the current owners cannot be located.; In your letter, you also request that this agency write to th Connecticut Bureau of Motor Vehicles and solicit their assistance in negotiating with Cummins a program to enable your company to maintain an on-going system to obtain vehicle registration on a timely basis. We think that such a program could be appropriate during a specific safety recall campaign. While not wishing to interfere with a State's decision to set reasonable procedures to safeguard lists of vehicle owner names and addresses, the agency believes that a request to Connecticut to assist you could be helpful in locating the current owners of Cummins equipment involved in this recall campaign. For these reasons, NHTSA, by separate letter, is requesting the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles to provide assistance to Cummins, as expeditiously as possible, in supplying the names and addresses of the equipment owners requested by your company.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2444 Open Charles O. Verrill, Jr., Esq., Messrs. Patton, Boggs, & Blow, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Charles O. Verrill Jr. Esq. Messrs. Patton Boggs & Blow 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1976, to th Administrator with respect to the Ryan tote- trailer manufactured by your client, Outboard Marine Corporation. You have asked whether the tote-trailer is a 'motor vehicle' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), if the answer is affirmative you have asked whether the tote trailer is a 'pole trailer' as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b), if the answer is negative, you have asked that any failure to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; In our opinion the tote- trailer is a 'motor vehicle' within th meaning of S 1391(3). Although the equipment that it carries is intended for off-road use, the tote trailer with load is hauled from place to place by motor vehicles, as depicted in the sales literature, that operate on the public roads. It has been our continuing opinion that vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. As your letter indicates, the trailer is purchased by rental agencies and 'is likely to be towed on the public roads and highways.' We therefore have concluded that the tote trailer is 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways' and falls within the coverage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; It is also our conclusion that the tote trailer is not a 'pole trailer as defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b). The tote trailer is attached to the towing vehicle by a conventional tongue and not 'by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle.' In addition, the load does not appear capable of sustaining itself as a beam between the supporting connections.; Therefore, it appears from your letter that all tote trailer manufactured since January 1, 1969, have not been equipped with lighting devices required by 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, that those manufactured since January 1, 1972, have not been provided with GAWR and GVWR figures on the certification labels required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and that those manufactured since September 1, 1976, may have not been equipped with tires required by 49 CFR 571.120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.; If your client wishes to submit a petition for inconsequentiality w request that it follow the format in proposed 49 CFR Part 566, copy enclosed. You may refer any questions on this matter to Mr. Vinson of my staff.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2954 Open Mr. William J. Baldridge, City Manager, City of Royal Oak, P.O. Box 64, Royal Oak, MI 48068; Mr. William J. Baldridge City Manager City of Royal Oak P.O. Box 64 Royal Oak MI 48068; Dear Mr. Baldridge: This responds to your December 21, 1978, letter asking the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit the City of Royal Oak, Michigan to obtain a waiver from the safety standards applicable to one of its vehicles. In particular, you ask that several standards be waived because the vehicle, as altered by the addition of an aerial bucket, would no longer comply with them.; Your letter does not clearly indicate the cause of the noncomplianc with Federal safety standards. The NHTSA concludes that the noncompliance probably arises because the altered vehicle will exceed the 'unloaded vehicle weight' that is used in determining its compliance with several of the agency's standards. Although the agency appreciates the problems that your city has with obtaining a complying vehicle, the NHTSA has no authority to grant exemptions from safety standards for individual vehicle users.; The manufacturer and alterer of the vehicle are responsible fo certifying that it complies with all Federal safety standards. The Federal government does not issue certificates that any vehicle complies with safety standards. The manufacturer or alterer, as part of its certification, must insure that its vehicle does not exceed the weight restrictions that are appropriate for the vehicle. Accordingly, if a vehicle alterer has informed you that an alteration cannot be done without exceeding the manufacturer's established weight restrictions, then the alterer could not truthfully certify the vehicle for compliance.; The NHTSA regrets the problems caused to Royal Oak by th implementation of the safety standards. The agency has received a petition from the Truck Body and Equipment Association asking for rulemaking to prevent future problems such as yours. The NHTSA currently is evaluating that petition. To resolve your problem, the agency suggests that you consider selling the chassis and utility body that you currently own and purchase another chassis and body that has a sufficient 'unloaded vehicle weight' to accommodate the alteration you intend. This will enable the vehicle that you finally obtain to comply with safety standards. These standards improve vehicle safety, and we are sure that Royal Oak would not want to purchase an unsafe vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2955 Open Mr. William J. Baldridge, City Manager, City of Royal Oak, P.O. Box 64, Royal Oak, MI 48068; Mr. William J. Baldridge City Manager City of Royal Oak P.O. Box 64 Royal Oak MI 48068; Dear Mr. Baldridge: This responds to your December 21, 1978, letter asking the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit the City of Royal Oak, Michigan to obtain a waiver from the safety standards applicable to one of its vehicles. In particular, you ask that several standards be waived because the vehicle, as altered by the addition of an aerial bucket, would no longer comply with them.; Your letter does not clearly indicate the cause of the noncomplianc with Federal safety standards. The NHTSA concludes that the noncompliance probably arises because the altered vehicle will exceed the 'unloaded vehicle weight' that is used in determining its compliance with several of the agency's standards. Although the agency appreciates the problems that your city has with obtaining a complying vehicle, the NHTSA has no authority to grant exemptions from safety standards for individual vehicle users.; The manufacturer and alterer of the vehicle are responsible fo certifying that it complies with all Federal safety standards. The Federal government does not issue certificates that any vehicle complies with safety standards. The manufacturer or alterer, as part of its certification, must insure that its vehicle does not exceed the weight restrictions that are appropriate for the vehicle. Accordingly, if a vehicle alterer has informed you that an alteration cannot be done without exceeding the manufacturer's established weight restrictions, then the alterer could not truthfully certify the vehicle for compliance.; The NHTSA regrets the problems caused to Royal Oak by th implementation of the safety standards. The agency has received a petition from the Truck Body and Equipment Association asking for rulemaking to prevent future problems such as yours. The NHTSA currently is evaluating that petition. To resolve your problem, the agency suggests that you consider selling the chassis and utility body that you currently own and purchase another chassis and body that has a sufficient 'unloaded vehicle weight' to accommodate the alteration you intend. This will enable the vehicle that you finally obtain to comply with safety standards. These standards improve vehicle safety, and we are sure that Royal Oak would not want to purchase an unsafe vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5069 Open Mr. James A. Westphal Oshkosh Chassis Division Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2508 Oshkosh, WI 54903; Mr. James A. Westphal Oshkosh Chassis Division Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2508 Oshkosh WI 54903; Dear Mr. Westphal: This letter responds to your inquiry about whic Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would be applicable to certain incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab) that you manufacture for motor homes. You anticipate that the motor homes will have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds but less than 26,000 pounds. Your letter indicated that Oshkosh plans to install brake systems in the two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disc brakes at each wheel. You stated that this system is commonly known as 'air-over-hydraulic.' The following is in response to your four specific questions: 1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121 applicable to trucks? The answer to question number one is yes. The agency classifies air-over- hydraulic brake systems as air brake systems. Accordingly, vehicles equipped with air-over-hydraulic brake systems are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121. I am enclosing a July 20, 1984 interpretation letter to Ms. Margaret Moore Oba which discusses this issue at length. 2. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles? The answer to question number two is no. Standard No. 105 only applies to vehicles with hydraulic brake systems. Since your system is air-over- hydraulic, it is considered to be an air brake system and not a hydraulic brake system. 3. If Standard No. 121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disc brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system-- dynamometer tests? The answer to question number three is yes. The requirements of S5.4 are among the requirements specified in Standard No. 121 for each vehicle equipped with air brakes. 4. If compliance to parts of both Standards 121 and 105 is required, must the system meet the requirements of the following sections in Standard No. 105: S5.1.2 Partial Failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp. As indicated above, air-over hydraulic brake systems are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 105. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure;
ID: aiam0018 Open Mr. Roddy Williams Container Enterprise 3900 Paris Road P.O. Box 1098 Chalmette, LA 70044-1098; Mr. Roddy Williams Container Enterprise 3900 Paris Road P.O. Box 1098 Chalmette LA 70044-1098; "Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your letter that asked whethe your company is permitted to assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115) to trailers that it 'remanufactures' from previously used trailers. The answer is that a company that performs the remanufacturing operations described in your letter may assign a new VIN to its remanufactured trailers. By doing so, however, the trailers would be treated as newly manufactured trailers for the purposes of this agency's safety standards and regulations. Among other things, this would mean that your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with all applicable safety standards in effect as of the date of the remanufacturing operations, including the lighting, tire, and brake standards applicable to new trailers. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your company, Container Enterprise, works on trailers that were used to carry cargo containers. You stated that approximately 90% of the trailers that Container Enterprise works on were originally built between 1974 and 1979. Container Enterprise takes used container chassis that are 23 feet long and removes the axles and half of the crossmembers on the original frame. Container Enterprise then manufactures a 12 foot subframe and reinstalls the used axles on this subframe. The subframe is then attached to the container chassis, extending its chassis length to 27 feet. The conversion allows the chassis to slide open or closed. You stated that upon completion of this process, Container Enterprise will issue 'a new manufacturer plate with a new VIN number' and date of remanufacture. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 115, which applies to all new vehicles. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that vehicles manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the vehicle manufacturer and S4.5 specifies that the assigned VIN shall appear clearly and indelibly on the vehicle. Thus, the only person that can assign a VIN to a vehicle is the vehicle's manufacturer. The question then is whether your company's 'remanufacturing' operations are substantial enough that the remanufactured trailers should be considered to be new vehicles and the manufacturer of those vehicles would be your company, instead of the original manufacturer of the trailer. NHTSA's regulations specifically address the question of when trailers produced by combining new components (the subframe fabricated by your company) and used components (the parts of the used container chassis) are considered to be new trailers. 49 CFR 571.7(f) states that when new and used components are used in trailer manufacture, the trailer will be considered 'newly manufactured' unless the following three conditions are met. First, the trailer running gear assembly, which includes the axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension, is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer. Second, the existing trailer's identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. Third, the existing trailer is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle. You have stated that your company would assign new VINs to the trailers it remanufactures. Upon doing so, the second condition in 571.7(f), continuing use of the original VIN, would not be met. Therefore, the trailers 'remanufactured' by your company would be considered to be newly manufactured. Your company, as the manufacturer, must certify that these trailers comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of the remanufacture. This means that, in addition to complying with the 1991 requirements of Standard No. 115, your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with the 1991 versions of the lighting standard (Standard No. 108), the tire and rim standard (Standard No. 120), and the air brake standard (Standard No. 121), to name a few examples of applicable standards. To assist you in making any such certifications, I am enclosing a brochure that briefly describes each of the safety standards and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles that explains how to get copies of our standards and regulations. Your letter also referred to U. S. Department of the Treasury Publication 510 on Excise Taxes. We can only tell you that your remanufactured trailers with new VINs would be considered new vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any questions about the trailers for purposes of excise taxes, you should contact the Internal Revenue Service. Their District Office for Louisiana is located at 500 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA 70130. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";
ID: aiam3738 Open Mr. Gary Richards, VIRACON, Inc., 800 Park Drive, Owatonna, MN 55060; Mr. Gary Richards VIRACON Inc. 800 Park Drive Owatonna MN 55060; Dear Mr. Richards: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning the agency's regulations and standards which would be applicable to a sunroof kit that you plan to manufacture as an item of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. As I understand it, you only plan to manufacture the sun roof kit and have no plans to install the sun roof in vehicles. You were, however, interested in any regulations or standards affecting the installation of such a sun roof kit.; Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies performance an location requirements for all glazing materials used on motor vehicles, whether as original equipment or as replacement (aftermarket) equipment. As a manufacturer or fabricator of glazing you would have to certify that the glazing used in your sun roof complies with all applicable requirements of the standard, a copy of which is enclosed.; Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have specifi responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety-related defects in their products. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. A copy of the Act and the applicable defect regulations are enclosed. In addition, Part 556, Manufacturer Identification, requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. A copy of Part 556 is enclosed.; If a sun roof is added to a vehicle before sale of the vehicle to it first purchaser, the vehicle alterer is required by Part 567 of our regulations to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. A copy of Part 567 is enclosed. If the sun roof is added by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop after the sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, the vehicle does not have to be recertified. Such businesses are, however, prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. Thus, for example, they would have to ensure that they do not install the sun roof in such a way that the vehicle no longer complies with Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, a copy of which is enclosed.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3158 Open Mr. 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
ID: aiam3157 Open Mr. 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
ID: aiam3043 Open Mr. Robert B. Kurre, Director of Engineering, Wayne Corporation, Industries Road, Post Office Box 1447, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering Wayne Corporation Industries Road Post Office Box 1447 Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your June 11, 1979, letter asking whether sid push-out window exits in school buses installed pursuant to State requirements must be marked in accordance with the emergency exit requirements of S5.5.3 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In particular, you want to know whether these additional exits must be labeled on the bus exterior.; Section S5.5.3 of the standard requires that '[e]ach school bu emergency exit provided in accordance with S5.2.3.1 shall have the designation....on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus. Section S5.2.3.1, in turn, requires that school buses be equipped with a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push-out window. Taken together, these two sections require that the required rear or side emergency door or rear push-out window must be appropriately marked on the inside and outside of the bus.; As the agency has frequently stated, all exits installed in schoo buses beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 need not comply with the exit requirements applicable to school bus exits. All additional exits must comply, however, with the other sections of the standard applicable to non-school buses. In this case, the additional exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with Sections S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of the standard. Neither of these paragraphs requires the exit to be marked on the bus exterior.; 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: aiam4175

ID: aiam2444

ID: aiam2954

ID: aiam2955

ID: aiam5069

ID: aiam0018

ID: aiam3738

ID: aiam3158

ID: aiam3157

ID: aiam3043

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?