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: aiam4970OpenMr. Kenneth R. Brownstein Senior Counsel PACCAR Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue, WA 98004; Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein Senior Counsel PACCAR Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue WA 98004; "Dear Mr. Brownstein: This responds to your letter, requesting that th agency clarify a provision in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. (49 CFR 571.120) Specifically, you asked whether under section S5.1.3, a vehicle manufacturer could, if requested by the purchaser, install retreaded tires procured by the manufacturer on a new vehicle. You stated that allowing the vehicle manufacture to buy retreaded tires would be more efficient and would help the truck owner to avoid having to make a separate purchase. I welcome this opportunity to respond to your request for an interpretation. Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 states: In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol. For the vehicle manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new truck, bus, or trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that five conditions must be satisfied. These are: (1) the purchaser must request such a retreaded or used tire, (2) the vehicle must be equipped with the retreaded or used tire at the vehicle's place of manufacture, (3) the retreaded or used tire to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser, (4) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle, and (5) used tires equipped on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 (and contain the DOT certification symbol). Your letter indicates that in buying the retreaded tires at the purchaser's request, PACCAR's actions would comply with the first condition (and presumably the second condition). However, since PACCAR and not the vehicle purchaser would supply the tire, your requested action clearly would not comply with the third condition which requires the retreaded or used tire to be owned by the purchaser. This condition permits a purchaser to order a new vehicle without any tires and install any tire it may choose. It is not clear from your letter whether the fourth condition would be satisfied. The fifth condition is not applicable to retreaded truck tires, since such tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on their sidewalls. Based on the above, we conclude that having a vehicle manufacturer supply a retreaded or used tire for a new vehicle would not comply with S5.1.3. We disagree with your view that the purpose of section S5.1.3 is to allow the purchaser to choose whether the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure it has knowledge of this fact. As discussed in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the purpose of the provision is to accommodate a practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to the vehicle manufacturer for installation on new vehicles they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been taken off vehicles no longer in service. (49 FR 20822, 20823, May 17, 1984). 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: aiam5398OpenHerr P. Binder ITT Automotive Europe GmbH Bietigheim-Bissingen Germany; Herr P. Binder ITT Automotive Europe GmbH Bietigheim-Bissingen Germany; FAX 07142/73-2895 Dear Herr Binder: This responds to your FAX of Apri 28, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your letter shows a rear motor vehicle lighting array of four lamps, two on the body ('Rearlamp 1') and the other on the tailgate ('Rearlamp 2'). The four lamps appear to be equal in size. You cite the requirement of Standard No. 108 and 'SAE J588e Sept. 77' that the lamp must 'provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of 12.5 cm2 measured at 45 deg.' and state that this 'will not be performed by Rearlamp 1 because of the tailgate, however, the requirement is met by Rearlamp 2 and will be met by Rearlamp 1 if the tailgate is open. You have asked whether such a system is allowed. First, a correction. There has never been a standard known as 'SAE J588e Sep. 77.' We believe that your are referring to SAE Standard J588e September 1970, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, but now applies only to certain replacement turn signal lamps (See S5.8.4(b)). The standard that applies to new passenger car designs such as you have depicted is SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less than 2032 mm in Overall Width. The visibility requirements, however, remain as you have stated. They are set forth in paragraph 5.4.1 of SAE J588 NOV84. As you have noted, the turn signal lamps must be visible through horizontal angles of 45 degrees to the right or left, depending on whether they are mounted on the right or left. To be considered visible, 'the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface . . . of at least 12.5 cm2 measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' We believe that the design depicted is in accordance with Standard No. 108. It is, in operation, a turn signal lamp system of two lamps on each side of the vehicle. Contrary to your assertion, we believe that the outer lamp on each side, Rearlamp 1, will meet the visibility requirements when the tailgate is in place because visibility must be met only at 45 degrees outboard (the agency judges compliance with the vehicle in its normal operating condition, that is to say, with the tailgate closed). Thus, under Standard No. 108, Rearlamp 2 is regarded as a permissible supplementary turn signal lamp. I hope that this is helpful to you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0460OpenMr. S. Nishibori, Engineering Representative, Liaison Office in U.S.A., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 400 County Avenue, Secaucus, NJ, 07094; Mr. S. Nishibori Engineering Representative Liaison Office in U.S.A. Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 400 County Avenue Secaucus NJ 07094; Dear Mr. Nishibori: In your letter of October 14 you ask whether reflex reflectors on th tail gate of a pick-up truck, as shown in Figure 1 of the drawings you enclosed, meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; Standard No. 108 requires, in part, that reflex reflectors be mounte 'on the rear' of a vehicle. Compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 is judged with the vehicle in its normal road operating condition. In our view, a pick-up truck is normally operated with the tail gate in a closed position, and the reflex reflectors mounted as shown in Figure 1 appear to meet the rear reflector location requirements of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5232OpenThe Honorable Charles E. Schumer Chairman Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice Committee on the Judiciary U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-6216; The Honorable Charles E. Schumer Chairman Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice Committee on the Judiciary U. S. House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515-6216; "Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter requesting NHTSA's view on whether Title VI 'Theft Prevention' of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., Cost Savings Act) places a limit of $15 on the cost of an antitheft device to be installed in a high theft vehicle pursuant to an exemption from the parts marking standard. You believe the answer is no. As explained below, we agree. The $15 limitation applies only to the cost of complying with the parts marking standard. The cost limitation appears in 2024(a), which provides that 'The standard under section 602 (section 2022) may not (1) impose costs upon any manufacturer of motor vehicles to comply with such standard in excess of $15 per motor vehicle...' (Emphasis added.) Further, 2024(a) makes no reference to 2025 or to the costs of installing antitheft devices pursuant to exemptions issued under that section. Thus, unless the costs of an antitheft device installed in lieu of compliance with the standard can be regarded as costs imposed by the standard, the $15 maximum does not apply to the costs of those devices. We do not regard the costs of those devices to be costs imposed by the standard. Instead, they are costs which the manufacturer has chosen to bear by voluntarily seeking an exemption from the standard. Further, we note that 2025 does not itself contain any cost limitation. Although the foregoing analysis of the statutory language is sufficient to answer your question, we note that the legislative history of the 1984 Theft Act speaks directly to that question. Chairman John Dingell of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce commented on concerns that the costs for antitheft devices will be far greater than the costs of parts marking. He believed that manufacturers will not install devices that add a substantial cost to a vehicle and indicated that, regardless of the potential costs, Title VI 'does not provide for consideration of costs by DOT.' (See, Congressional Record-House October 1, 1984, p. H 10462, at 10472.) Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Cost Savings Act does not limit the cost of an antitheft device that is installed pursuant to the issuance under 2025 of an exemption from the standard. Please note that the passage of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (ACTA) did not amend, in any way relevant to our conclusions, the provisions limiting costs of parts marking and authorizing the installation of antitheft devices in lieu of parts marking. I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator"; |
|
ID: aiam0030OpenMr. John J. Paxton, Honda of New York, 215 West 64th Street, New York, NY 10023; Mr. John J. Paxton Honda of New York 215 West 64th Street New York NY 10023; Dear Mr. Paxton: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1967, to Mr. Donald H Schwentker in which you request confirmation that the Japanese-made CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF- 7SVH compact trucks are multipurpose passenger vehicles under the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; You state that the CONY line is primarily a line of commercia truck-type vehicles and that the Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH, although providing for four persons, are built on the same truck chassis as the purely commercial models.; A 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined in section 255.3 as ' motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.'; Therefore, the CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH are multipurpos passenger vehicles, since they are designed to carry 10 persons or less and are constructed on a truck chassis.; Sincerely, William Haddon Jr., M.D., Director |
|
ID: aiam4073OpenE. Timothy Pawl, P.E., President, Pawl Inventioneering Corporation, P.O. Box 5425, West Bloomfield, MI 48033; E. Timothy Pawl P.E. President Pawl Inventioneering Corporation P.O. Box 5425 West Bloomfield MI 48033; Dear Mr. Pawl: This is in response to your letter of November 29, 1985, to the forme Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey R. Miller, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Your letter is vague as to the precise function of your 'safet related' lighting device, and whether you wish to offer it as original equipment or equipment intended for installation after the sale of a vehicle to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. If the latter, then its legality is determinable solely under the laws of each State in which it will be used.; If you intend it as original equipment, on a vehicle at the time of it initial sale, then its legality would be determinable under Standard No. 108. As a general rule, section S4.1.3 prohibits the installation of any device that would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. You have informed us that your device, which consists of 'amber LED's' in the 'rear package tray,' is inoperative during application of the service brakes, thus, it does not appear that it would impair the effectiveness of the center high-mounted stop lamp.; You have also stated that it is located 'in relative proximity' to th center stop lamp but is not combined with it, and you have asked if this meets the intent of S4.4.1 regarding equipment combinations. This section forbids the combination of the center stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. Since your device is physically separate from the center lamp, S4.4.1 would not appear to prohibit your device.; You have also stated that when viewed from the rear, 'the pattern o illuminated LED's may change, possibly giving the illusion of flashing,' and you ask for a definition of 'flashing' as described in section S4.6(c). This section has been renumbered S4.5.11, and subsection (c) permits an exception to the general rule that lamps in use must be steady-burning, permitting headlamps and side marker lamps to 'flash' for signalling purposes. The definition of flash is that contained in S3, a cycle of activation and deactivation by automatic means, and this definition does not specify frequency or other characteristics. To us, the important question is whether your device complies with section S4.5.11(e) which requires all lamps (other than those specifically excepted) to be steady-burning in use. A lamp that changes patterns may not flash, but it cannot be viewed as steady-burning either.; Finally, you state that 'section S4.3 states that no function othe than red reflex reflectors shall be combined with CHMSL or rear turn signal lamps' and ask whether amber or any other color 'may be used in proximity' since it is not used in combination. We believe you must be referring to section S4.4.1 which states that 'no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp or identification lamp, and no high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.' As we do not know the intended functions of your LED device, I can offer only general comments. Although red is the required color for all rear lighting devices except backup and license plate lamps, amber is permitted as an optional color for rear turn signals, furthermore, amber is generally accepted as indicating the need for caution. Thus, amber is not a lens color whose presence on rear lighting devices would *per se* impair effectiveness. The use of other colors for lighting devices on the rear of vehicles could lead to confusion, and be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0899OpenMr. M. Terasawa, Representative, Nippondenso Company, Ltd., 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. M. Terasawa Representative Nippondenso Company Ltd. 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Terasawa: This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1972, telling us tha you have tested turn signal flashers in accordance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108a, which you believe is a more severe test than Standard No. 108, and asking our views as to whether you should retest in accordance with Standard No. 108.; The important question is not whether one standard establishes a mor severe test than another, but whether a flasher meets all performance requirements applicable to it on the date of its manufacture. The legal obligation of a manufacturer is to insure that it does. The requirements currently applicable to flashers are those of Standard No. 108.; It is true that Standard No. 108a has been 'repealed' and No. 10 'reinstated'. The reason for this action is a judicial decision that the NHTSA did not provide adequate public notice and opportunity to comment on the flasher requirements in Standard No. 108a. However, the NHTSA has proposed that the flasher performance requirements of Standard No. 108a be re- adopted, and is offering the public an opportunity to comment. I enclose a copy of the notice for your information.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4589OpenMr. Les Schreiner Fresia Engineering Inc. 700 E. Main Street Suite 1618 Richmond, VA 23219; Mr. Les Schreiner Fresia Engineering Inc. 700 E. Main Street Suite 1618 Richmond VA 23219; "Dear Mr. Schreiner: This responds to your letter asking whether som vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towing vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new 'motor vehicles' and new items of 'motor vehicle equipment.' Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads. NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with your letter yields the following tentative conclusions. 1. The vehicles identified as 'aircraft towing tractors' would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads. 2. The vehicles identified as 'snow removal equipment' appear to fall into two categories. a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the 'F10 NF' and the 'Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR,' 'Fresa Laterale,' and 'Fresa Integrale HP 200-170' models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed appears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as 'snow removal equipment.' All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject. I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles should be classified for the purposes of the safety standards. Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicles. Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be 'motor vehicles' into the United States, I have enclosed some additional materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statutes and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures.' This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks. Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any 'approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer' to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures /"; |
|
ID: aiam1271OpenMrs. Nance Stamboni, Director, Vehicle Registration Division, State Motor Vehicle Administration, 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E., Glen Burnie, MD 21061; Mrs. Nance Stamboni Director Vehicle Registration Division State Motor Vehicle Administration 6601 Ritchie Highway N.E. Glen Burnie MD 21061; Dear Mrs. Stamboni: I have checked the sample ANSID-19.4 title and odometer disclosur forms which were submitted by you and Mr. Pfaff for review.; The odometer form complies with the disclosure regulation, 49 CFR Par 580. The odometer disclosure portion of the title document complies except for a blank for Last Plate Number and a reference to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act which points out the civil liabilities for failure to comply.; If we can be of any more assistance, please contact our office. Yours truly, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4423OpenMr. Robert B. Dix, Jr. Fleet Manager JKJ Chevrolet Koons Plaza 2000 Chain Bridge Road Vienna, VA 22180; Mr. Robert B. Dix Jr. Fleet Manager JKJ Chevrolet Koons Plaza 2000 Chain Bridge Road Vienna VA 22180; "Dear Mr. Dix: This responds to your letter requesting informatio concerning 'after market upfittings'. You indicate that you intend to bid on Federal, State or County motor vehicle solicitations and it appears that a number of these solicitations contain specifications that would require 'after market upfittings'. You asked how our regulations would affect those 'after market upfittings'. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue these safety standards. NHTSA does not have authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to a manufacturer's motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act established a 'self-certification' process, in which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. It is not clear from your letter whether 'after market upfittings' means that you will be altering motor vehicles while they are still new, i.e., before they have been sold to a consumer for the first time or that you will be making modifications to used vehicles, i.e., ones that have been purchased already. The requirements applicable to the 'after market upfittings' vary, depending on whether the alteration is performed before or after the vehicle has been sold to a consumer for the first time. I will discuss first the requirements that would apply if you modify vehicles that are new. As modified, the vehicles must continue to comply with all applicable standards, since section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits the sale of any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Further, the agency's certification requirements in Part 567 of the Code of Federal Regulations applies to any person who changes previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the weight ratings assigned to the vehicle are no longer valid. Such a person is considered an 'alterer' for purposes of Part 567 (copy enclosed). The person performing the modifications set forth in your letter (installing a bench seat or adding auxiliary springs) would be considered an alterer, because seats and springs are not readily attachable components. In this situation, 49 CFR 567.7 requires that: (1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see /567.7(a)), (2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in //567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see /567.7(b)), and (3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certification. In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Safety Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. With respect to your first point, i.e., that you believe you should '(o)btain from the company doing the work a certification that the after market upfitting meets National Highway Safety Standards,' the alterer is required to certify that the altered new vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. I am not sure that I understand your second point, i.e., that if a bench seat is installed in a cargo van, the van must have a side door that can be opened from the inside. If you are speaking of an obligation to make some modification to an existing side door, the door would be governed by Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention system (See 49 CFR 571.206). S4 of Standard 206 provides that the standard's requirements apply to 'any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations' and specifies different strength and lock requirements for different types of doors. The addition of a bench seat to what was formerly the cargo compartment would convert that compartment into one subject to S4. The safety standard does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative. If your second point refers to an obligation to install a side door because you install a bench seat, that is not correct. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not impose an obligation that there be a side door in a van. With all of the preceding statements, however, you should note that section 108(c) of the Safety Act provides that compliance with our standards does not exempt any person from any liability under common law. Accordingly, you may wish to consult with a private attorney regarding any product liability concerns you may have about the operability of the door. Your third point is that you believe that you must place 'a decal, label, or some form of paperwork in the vehicle indicating the results of the upfitting.' If the 'after market upfittings' to which you refer are made to a new vehicle, /567.7 requires the alterer to permanently affix to the vehicle a label setting forth the information specified in that section. Having discussed the requirements applicable to new vehicles, I now turn to discussing those applicable to used vehicles. If the 'after market upfittings' are modifications to used vehicles (in this case, vehicles sold and delivered to a public authority), section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act applies. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, neither your dealership nor any company that is a repair business or manufacturer can alter legally any vehicle that complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when you receive it (as certified on the motor vehicle by the original manufacturer), in such a way that the vehicle no longer complies with the applicable safety standards. If the vehicles in question are used vehicles at the time of their modification, the company performing the modifications is not required to provide a separate certification, as discussed in your points 1 and 3. Since you, as the dealer, may be held responsible under section 108(a)(2)(A) for any rendering inoperative by a company acting as your agent, you may wish to get written assurances from the modifier that it has made the modifications in a manner which will not take the vehicle out of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, that matter is left for your dealership and the modifier to resolve. As an aid to helping you determine which standards may apply to the modified vehicles, I am enclosing a publication entitled 'Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures.' This pamphlet indicates which standards apply to which vehicle types. I also have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
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.