NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam1014OpenMr. R. Debesson, General Secretary, E.T.R.T.O., 49, Rue Barathon, 03-Montlucon, France; Mr. R. Debesson General Secretary E.T.R.T.O. 49 Rue Barathon 03-Montlucon France; Dear Mr. Debesson: This is in reply to your submission No. 65/109 of January 23, 1973 petitioning that temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 be provided for European tire manufacturers who manufacture high speed tires. Your petition points out that Standards No. 109 does not allow the manufacture of high speed tires designed to be inflated to relatively high inflation pressures, but which do not have commensurate load-carrying ability at those pressures. You indicate that such tires are commonly used in Europe for high speed passenger cars, and have hot produced safety problems.; The temporary exemption regulations (49 CFR 555, copy enclosed), i accordance with the statutory authority under which they were issued (P.L. 92-548), apply only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. They do not apply to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and the relief which they provide is accordingly not available to tire manufacturers.; The NHTSA is of the opinion that the requirements of Standard No. 109 emphasizing the load-carrying as well as the high speed capability of passenger car tires, should be suited to driving condition which predominate in the United States. Despite the facts, as you mention, that it is possible for motorists to exceed postal speed limits, and that areas do exist where speed limits are not posted, the NHTSA believes the high speed requirements of Standard No. 109 are sufficient to guard against tire failures under these conditions. At the same time, the NHTSA will consider petitions to amend Standard No. 109, submitted pursuant to NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR 553.31, .33), and E.T.R.T.O. is free to petition to amend the standard to include requirements for European-type high speed tires. Your petition should contain full supporting data for the amendments requested. We would expect you as well to include possible performance requirements for such tires.; You refer briefly in your letter to the performance of these tires whe tested pursuant to the planned Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation. The NHTSA plans to publish in the very near future a revised notice of proposed rulemaking regarding this regulation, and we will be pleased to receive your comments to that proposal when it is published.; Yours truly, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3029OpenMr. John Cordner, Technical Assistant, Product Compliance, Subaru of America, Inc., 7040 Central Highway, Pennsauken, NJ 08109; Mr. John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance Subaru of America Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennsauken NJ 08109; Dear Mr. Cordner: This is in response to your letter of May 23, 1979, addressed to Ms Eileen T. Leahy of my staff, in which you provide further information in support of your earlier request for this agency's opinion as to whether a 1980 4WD Hatchback Sedan to be imported by Subaru of America can be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV).; As I stated to you in my letter of May 31, 1979, the fact that vehicle is equipped with four-wheel drive is not, in itself, sufficient to qualify the vehicle as an MPV, as that term is defined in 49 CFR S 571.3. Your second letter lists six other features of the 1980 hatchback sedan which you state are designed to permit occasional off-road use. The additional features you describe are: a ground clearance of 8.07 inches, or 1.57 inches higher than a similar 2WD vehicle, adjusting devices to permit an additional 0.78 inches of ground clearance front and rear, an engine undercover to protect the engine from rocks and other debris, a clutch cover to prevent entry of dust and sand, bumper overriders to protect front and rear bumpers, and a tubular guard in front of the air dam for protection from rocks and other debris.; The ground clearance you describe exceeds that specified in th definition of automobiles 'capable of off-highway operation' contained in the fuel economy regulations (49 CFR S 523.5(b)(2)(iv)). In addition, the other features you describe appear to be designed to protect various parts of the vehicle from damage from rocks, sand and other types of debris that are more likely to be encountered in off-road driving. Therefore, all of the items you mention can be considered 'special features for occasional off-road operation' when determining the proper classification of the vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; Since the vehicle as you have described it in your letters has severa features in addition to four-wheel drive that make it suitable for occasional off-road use, it is the agency's opinion that the 4WD Hatchback Sedan would qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4216OpenMr. Toshio Maeda, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer, Nissan Research & Development, Inc., P.O. Box 8650, Ann Arbor, MI 48104; Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor MI 48104; Dear Mr. Maeda: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1986, concerning the safety bel contact force provision of the comfort and convenience requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You explained that Nissan is concerned about the requirements of S10.6 contained in the final rule published on March 21, 1986. You noted that a sentence contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking was not included in the final rule and asked whether this sentence had been inadvertently omitted.; In addition, you asked the agency to clarify the effect of the omitte sentence on belt systems which have less than 12 inches of webbing stored in the retractor once the belt is placed around the test dummy. You explained that Nissan considers the purpose of the requirement in the omitted sentence to be elimination of belt drag before measuring the belt contact force. You explained that requiring a manufacturer to pull 12 inches of webbing from the retractor before the belt contact test would require redesign of Nissan's belt systems, even though those systems meet the safety belt adjustment requirements of the standard. You asked the agency to provide that a manufacturer can pull the maximum allowable length of the belt stored on the retractor, rather than 12 inches, prior to conducting the belt contact force test.; As explained in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the sentenc contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking was inadvertently omitted from the final rule. NHTSA agrees that the purpose of the belt webbing pull requirement can be adequately met by pulling out the maximum allowable amount of the belt, when the belt has less than 12 inches of available additional webbbing (sic). Pulling the belt in this way will ensure that the belt retractor is working and webbing drag is reduced. Thus, the agency has modified the requirement to provide that prior to measuring the belt contact force the agency will pull out 12 inches of webbing or the maximum amount of webbing available when the maximum amount is less than 12 inches.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1444OpenMr. Bruce J. Motyka, 2030 Laura Lane, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; Mr. Bruce J. Motyka 2030 Laura Lane Des Plaines Illinois 60018; Dear Mr. Motyka: This is in reply to your letter of March 11, 1974, asking fo suggestions regarding problems you have experienced with your pickup truck-camper unit.; It appears from your letter that no violations of Federal requirement have occurred. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 and its companion Consumer Information requirement (49 CFR S575.103) about which we wrote to you through Senator Percy's office did not become effective until January 1, 1973, well after the time you bought your vehicle. Moreover, it is not correct to characterize the dealer who sold you the unit as a 'final-stage manufacturer.' Under NHTSA requirements a pickup truck is a completed vehicle, and a person who installs a slide-in camper into the cargo area of a truck does not become a manufacturer. While this is not the case with chassis-mount campers, it is with respect to slide-in campers.; I suggest that if you wish to proceed further you consult an attorney who would be able to best assess your chances of success in civil litigation. The dealer's employee who told you that the 'GVW plate meant nothing' was mistaken. The weight ratings provided on the plate represent the manufacturer's representation of the maximum safe weight of a fully loaded vehicle.; You might wish to examine the labels attached, pursuant to Standard No 126 and 49 CFR S575.103, to later models of both the pickup truck and camper you purchased. It os possible that those models and the ones you purchased are not substantially different. If that is the case the information on the labels can provide an indication of the extent that the weight ratings were exceeded by installation of the camper unit in question.; While I regret we cannot be of further assistance I wish you success i your efforts to solve this problem.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3479OpenMr. Jack DiMaio, Semperit of America, Inc., 156 Ludlow Avenue, Northvale, NJ 07647; Mr. Jack DiMaio Semperit of America Inc. 156 Ludlow Avenue Northvale NJ 07647; Dear Mr. DiMaio: This is in response to your telephone inquiry of October 13, 1981 asking whether tire tread labels required under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards must continue to be affixed to tires once applicable UTQG grades are added to sidewall molds for the tires. The UTQG regulation contemplates that tire grading information will be made available to consumers simultaneously through a variety of means, including tread labels (49 CFR S 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)), sidewall molding (49 CFR S 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)), and leaflets available at the point of sale (49 CFR S 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). While the regulation was recently amended to permit tire grades to be molded on the tire sidewall at any time up to six months after introduction of a new tire line (46 FR 41514, August 17, 1981), this change in no way affected the obligation imposed by S 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) that UTQG tread labels be affixed to all replacement tires to which the regulation applies. Thus, once the sidewall molding requirement takes effect for a line of tires, the regulation requires that UTQG information be displayed on the tires both by means of sidewall molding and by labels attached to the tread surface.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4646OpenThomas A. Coz, Esq. Senior Attorney North American Van Lines Law Department P.O. Box 988 Fort Wayne, IN 46801-0988; Thomas A. Coz Esq. Senior Attorney North American Van Lines Law Department P.O. Box 988 Fort Wayne IN 46801-0988; Dear Mr. Coz: This is in reply to your letter of April 28, l989, wit respect to the legality under Standard No. 108 of supplemental lighting devices that North American Van Lines has installed on some of its trailers. To assist us in answering your question, you have enclosed a photograph of a trailer retrofitted with the supplemental devices, and a videocassette. However, the 'Final Specs' sheets referenced in your letter were not enclosed. The lamps in question are stop lamps/turn signal lamps which are mounted above the maximum mounting heights specified in Standard No. 108. You believe that this is permissible because they are supplemental to the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps which are mounted within the limits specified in the standard. However, the Department of California Highway Patrol has informed you that this agency does not differentiate between original and supplemental equipment, and requires that both original and supplemental lighting equipment must conform to the mounting requirements. We are not aware of the basis of the California opinion. The only requirement of Standard No. 108 for supplemental lighting equipment on vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale is the restraint of paragraph S5.l.3 that they not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. Retrofit by North American Van Lines itself of its own vehicles after the first purchase for purposes other than resale is permissible under Federal law. However, if the retrofit were performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, the operation would be subject to the restraint of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) that it not render inoperative, in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Subject to these constraints, a mounting height that exceeds the maximum specified by Standard No. 108 is permissible for supplemental lighting equipment. We interpret 'partially inoperative' as also meaning 'partially ineffective'. The location of your lamps as shown in the photograph you enclosed does not appear to 'render inoperative' any other lighting device or affect its effectiveness. We note that the retrofitted trailer in the videocassette does not appear to be equipped with the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108. Further, unless the clearance lamps are combined with the supplemental stop/turn signals in both the videocassette and the photograph you enclosed, they too appear to be missing. If the clearance lamps are combined with the supplementary lamps, care should be taken that the supplementary lamps do not 'render inoperative' the clearance lamps. Although, as noted above, the Act permits an owner to modify his vehicle in a nonconforming manner, the operation of your interstate highway trailer is subject to the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, which require that identification and clearance lamps be provided for these trailers. We are returning your videocassette. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam3183OpenE. Michael Flanagan, Esq., Messrs. Pierson, Ball & Dowd, 1000 Ring Building, 1200 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; E. Michael Flanagan Esq. Messrs. Pierson Ball & Dowd 1000 Ring Building 1200 18th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Flanagan: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1979, to Taylor Vinso of this office requesting written confirmation of an oral opinion.; Specifically you asked whether your client, Grumman Allied Industries Inc. needed to obtain a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 in the situation where it, to use your words, 'was considering converting a small number of their gasoline-powered trucks to diesel power on an experimental basis in order to sponsor a comparative fuel economy test which would be conducted by their consumers.' The opinion for which you request written confirmation is that Grumman 'would not need a temporary exemption if there existed a reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle as modified would still be in compliance with the fuel integrity safety standard.'; That opinion is essentially correct assuming that Grumman is th manufacturer of the vehicles in question. Grumman may substitute diesel engines for conventional ones in the manufacturing process without barrier impacting its vehicles if a reasonable basis exists for concluding that its vehicles as modified will meet the standard. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not legally require a manufacturer to test its vehicles. It does, however, require conformance with NHTSA safety performance standards and although testing in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in the standards may provide the greatest assurance of conformity, a manufacturer may nevertheless resort to engineering studies mathematical calculations, computer simulations etc. as a basis for certifying that the vehicle does meet all applicable standards.; If Grumman is converting existing vehicles produced and certified b another manufacturer, the responsibility differs though the end result may be substantially similar. The Act imposes no restrictions upon the alteration of a vehicle by its owner, but the agent of an owner (specifically a manufacturer, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) may not 'knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle... in compliance with an applicable safety standard ....' (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, if a person other than Grumman is converting existing vehicles to diesel power, it should not do so unless it is assured that at the end of the conversion process the vehicle continues to meet Standard No. 301-75.; I hope this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3496OpenMr. Rickey L. Newmayer, Mr. Jerry A. Corbett, Newbuilt Enterprises, 540 California Avenue, Sand City, California 93955; Mr. Rickey L. Newmayer Mr. Jerry A. Corbett Newbuilt Enterprises 540 California Avenue Sand City California 93955; Dear Messrs. Newmayer and Corbett: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1981, regarding Safety Standar No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of our response. You request permission to install a 'Ballistic Cube 2000' in 500 motor vehicles over a two-year period for experimental purposes. The 'Ballistic Cube 2000' is a protective cubicle made of Lexgard that is installed inside a vehicle. Lexgard, a bullet-resistant material, does not comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 205. You urge us to grant your request on the basis that the data generated form such an experiment would be relevant to a rulemaking proceeding initiated by General Electric. (General Electric has petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard No. 205 to permit the use of protective bullet- resistant shields in vehicles. The agency granted this petition on November 28, 1980.); Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which applies to all glazin materials used in passenger cars, buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. All automotive glazing materials, including those used in the Ballistic Cube 2000, must conform to the standard's requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) provides in part that no person shall sell or manufacture for sale any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect on the date of the item's manufacture. Thus, if you were to manufacture for sale or sell a Ballistic Cube 2000 made of Lexgard or any other glazing material that does not comply with Standard No. 205, you would be in violation of section 108(a)(1)(A). (Section 108(b)(5) establishes that section 108(a)(1)(A) does not apply when the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is intended solely for export and is so labeled.) Section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation of Section 108.; We believe that installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in moto vehicles could possibly generate test data that could be valuable to the agency in the previously mentioned rulemaking proceeding. Unfortunately, however, NHTSA does not have the legal authority to grant you permission to make such an installation. NHTSA does not have statutory authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer from the requirements of Section 108(a)(1)(A) as it relates to motor vehicle equipment.; Section 123 of the Act authorizes the exemption of motor vehicles fro the safety standards. However, it does not authorize the exemption of motor vehicle equipment form equipment standards. As noted above, Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard applicable to glazing. Consequently, no exemption can be granted under section 123 that would excuse manufacturing, offering for sale or selling noncomplying glazing as part of the vehicles you wish to modify and sell, since you would also be considered an equipment manufacturer.; While the agency cannot grant you an exemption, it is pursing th request made by G.E. regarding Lexgard. The agency anticipates issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking before the end of this year. If a final rule permitting the use of Lexgard were issued, you could commence manufacturing and installation of the Ballistic Cubes upon the effective date of that rule.; Even if that rule is issued, there may be other standards which must b considered. As we understand your materials, the installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in motor vehicles may affect the compliance of those vehicles with FMVSS No. 103, *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems*, and FMVSS No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. If you were to install a Ballistic Cube in a new vehicle, i.e., one that had not yet been purchased for purposes other than resale, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) if the vehicle no longer complied with one of those standards. Of course, since Standard Nos. 103 and 201 are vehicle standards, you could apply for an exemption from those standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would prohibit you from installing the Ballistic Cube in a used vehicle if such installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Standard 103 and 201.; The agency cannot definitively state whether installation of your cub in a motor vehicle would effect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard Nos. 201 or 103. NHTSA does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination The agency is willing to offer an opinion on whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with particular rule. Such an opinion is not binding on the agency or on the manufacturer. However, the information you have provided in your letter does not give us a sufficient basis on which to form an opinion. It would probably be difficult for the agency to offer an opinion concerning your compliance with Standard 203 regardless of the information you supplied, since that standard involves a dynamic performance test.; Apart from the requirements imposed by section 108(a)(1)(A) regardin compliance with safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have general responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under section 151 *et seq*., such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.; I am sorry we are unable to accommodate you in this matter. However since it is beyond our legal authority to do so, we have no choice but to make the decision set forth in this letter. Please contact this office if you have any questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4353OpenMr. M. Arisaka, Manager, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Control Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. M. Arisaka Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Sect. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Arisaka: This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1986, to former Chie Counsel Jeffrey Miller, concerning the photometric reference axis for a two lamp headlamp system, and location of aiming pads.; Your first question is what is the mechanical axis of performin photometry tests where the upper beam in a dual beam headlamp is provided by HB3 and HB4 light sources. As you know, the answer is simple for a single bulb sealed beam headlamp of symmetrical dimensions: a line perpendicular to the aiming plane through the geometric center of the lens (SAE Standard J579c). Thus, the reference axis for the lower beam of your system would be the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminated by the HB4. The reference axis for the upper beam is not as easy to identify. Theoretically it should be the center of the light pattern that is produced by the two bulbs. This point would probably be somewhere between the midpoint of the axes of the HB3 and the HB4 and the axis of the HB3. This point is not shown on any of your drawings. However, since the intensity of the lower beam is usually less than 5000 cd at test point H-V, the theoretical point described above will be very close to the axis of the HB3. For this reason, the axis of the HB3 should be used as the reference axis for your system. In summary, your Case 1 Table A depicts the proper references axes.; You have also asked where the aiming pass ought to be located on such headlamp system, saying that NHTSA's interpretations letter of September 6.1985, indicated that the pads should be placed on the lower beam portion of the lamp's lens, but that lamps existed on which they were placed elsewhere. Our 1985 letter was written at a time when experience with these lamps was limited. We now believe that the pads can be located anywhere that will permit proper mechanical aiming, proper reference for photometric purposes, and that do not interfere with the forming of the beam. Therefore, either of the two locations you present, or any other location, is acceptable provided that the three conditions mentioned above are met.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1151OpenMr. Thomas Pieratt, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Assoc., 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas Pieratt Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Assoc. 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of May 11, 1973, in which you ask abou the certification responsibilities for consecutive manufacturers of certain multi-stage vehicles that are intended for use by utilities. The facts as you present them are that a chassis-cab is purchased by a customer and delivered to a utility distributor, who installs a sub-base and a digger-derrick. The truck is then sent to a body-builder who installs a body consisting essentially of storage compartments, which are used to carry personal tools. The compartments are installed to the floor installed by the utility distributor. The unit is then returned to the utility distributor, who installs clearance and other lamps, reflectors, and other accessories, and hooks up hydraulic lines. Smaller vehicles are described as being manufactured in essentially the same manner.; It appears to us that the manufacturing operations you have describe fit quite readily into the manufacturing categories established by Parts 567 and 568. The utility equipment distributor is an intermediate manufacturer, he performs manufacturing operations, but does not complete the vehicle, as further manufacturing operations, the installation of the body, are clearly contemplated for the vehicle to perform its intended function. The body-builder is the final-stage manufacturer. When he completes his work the vehicle is ready to perform its intended function, except for the addition of the lighting equipment and the other operations performed by the utility equipment distributor. These latter operations appear to involve 'readily- attachable components' and if so the party performing them would not be a final-stage manufacturer.; The certification requirements do not operate differently because, i the case you describe, the utility equipment distributor performs operations on the vehicle at two separate times (installing the derrick, and later the lighting). His responsibilities each time are governed by the operation he then performs. However, inasmuch as the utility distributor appears to perform much of the heavy manufacturing, and because he is also the last person to modify the vehicle, he may wish to assume the responsibility for certification under section 568.7(b), in order that he may affix his name as the manufacturer to the certification label.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.