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: aiam5271OpenMr. Jack McIntyre Vice President Tie Tech Inc. Post Office Box 5226 Lynnwood, WA 98046-5226; Mr. Jack McIntyre Vice President Tie Tech Inc. Post Office Box 5226 Lynnwood WA 98046-5226; "Dear Mr. McIntyre: This responds to your letter in which you withdre your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead. You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair. Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, 'except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . .' That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards. I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4876OpenMs. Vicki Haudler 4636 S. Cedar Lake Rd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416; Ms. Vicki Haudler 4636 S. Cedar Lake Rd. St. Louis Park MN 55416; "Dear Ms. Haudler: This responds to your letter seeking furthe information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: 'If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect .' You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no. Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars. I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1153OpenMr. Richard T. Ford, Hayden, Smith, Ford & Hays, 1215 Security Bank Building, Fresno, CA 93721; Mr. Richard T. Ford Hayden Smith Ford & Hays 1215 Security Bank Building Fresno CA 93721; Dear Mr. Ford: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1973, forwarding to us you second attempt to compose a letter that will conform to Part 577, Defect Notification, for a defect involving the lighting in boat trailers manufactured by V/M Custom Boat Trailers. We responded to an earlier letter from you on May 16, 1973.; Section 577.6 prohibits the making of any statement in the notificatio that either states or implies that the problem discussed is not a defect, or that it does not relate to motor vehicle safety. As we indicated to you in our letter of May 16, we considered your statement, 'The defect on those trailers . . . does not affect the mechanical operation of said trailer except insofar as the lighting is inefficient as installed according to the U.S. Department of Transportation' to be prohibited by section 577.6. The additional phrase, 'This statement is one of fact only and is not intended to be a disclaimer which is prohibited by section 577.6 of the Act', which you have now inserted, does not remedy that deficiency. The regulation states that such a statement may not be made at all, it does not allow it to be made and denied.; Our objection to the statement is with your description of the defec as an 'inefficiency' according to the Department of Transportation. This safety related defect results, rather, from violations of law which require your client's products to meet minimim (sic) safe levels of performance. We recommend that rather than attempt once again to rewrite your statement, and risk violation of the regulation, you delete it entirely, and send the notification to purchasers forthwith.; In other respects your notification appears to conform to Part 577. Sincerely yours, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4352OpenDr. Ernst, Hella KG Hueck & Co, Postfach 28 40, 4780 Lippstadt, GERMANY; Dr. Ernst Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt GERMANY; Dear Dr Ernst: This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1987, to Richard Va Iderstine of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new headlamp manufactured by Hella that BMW has installed on a new car which it introduced in the United States around April 1, 1987.; The headlamp is of the replaceable bulb type, and as you describe i consist of two additional parts: 'the housing, to which the cover lens is bonded by means of a two-component adhesive', and 'the optical module, consisting of the reflector and the convex lens, joined by the lens carrier....' In your words, 'The two parts are held together by three screws', and you believe that 'the two parts, firmly screwed together, are as effectively joined as would be the case if bonded'.; Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 108 defines a 'replaceable bulb headlamp in pertinent part as 'a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly....' In the Hella design, the lens and reflector assembly are not bonded, and thus the headlamp is not a 'replaceable bulb headlamp' that is permissible for use on motor vehicle sold and used in the United States. The intent of the definition is to ensure that the headlamp lens and reflector are an integral replaceable unit, since that is the only means to assure a mechanically aimable replaceable bulb headlamp which is capable of using any replacement standardized replaceable light source and meets the necessary photometric performance. The foundation of mechanical amiability is that the beam and aiming pad are manufactured to have a specific relationship. If this relationship is altered by replacement of the lens only, or of the reflector only, there is a high likelihood that the lamp may not meet minimum performance requirements when aimed mechanically.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3835OpenMr. Walter A. Genthe, President, Hella North America, Inc., P.O. Box 499, Flora, IL 62839; Mr. Walter A. Genthe President Hella North America Inc. P.O. Box 499 Flora IL 62839; Dear Mr. Genthe: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1984, with respect t the inclusion of other lighting functions in a replaceable bulb headlamp compartment. These functions could include parking lamps, turn signal lamps, or side marker lamps. The bulb used would meet Standard No. 108/SAE specifications for the function chosen and they would be incorporated into the compartment by a 'sealed attachment.' You represent that there will be no impairment of any function, and that the overall assembly will meet all photometric and environmental specifications. You have asked whether such a combination assembly is permissible under Standard No. 108.; The agency interprets Standard No. 108's specifications for replaceabl bulb headlamps as allowing only one bulb in a lamp assembly to be used for headlighting purposes. It is silent as to whether additional bulbs may be used to provide other lighting functions. This means that such a bulb is permitted.; Obviously the inclusion of a second bulb can affect the characteristic of the assembly, whether through heat build up, the introduction of contaminants through the junction of the bulb and assembly, etc. These problems would appear to be minimized under the assumptions set forth in your letter. We believe therefore that, under these conditions, an auxiliary bulb could be included in the headlighting compartment, provided that the assembly meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108 for each function. Problems that may develop in service would be subject to the safety related defects authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; If Hella proceeds with a multi-bulb design, we would like to reques that it share with us the types of tests it will be developing which it deems necessary to insure adequate safety performance, so that our knowledge of the art lamp technology may be broadened.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0246OpenMr. Fred C. Zimmer, Evans, Gentithes and Meermans, 220 East Market Street, Warren, Ohio 44481; Mr. Fred C. Zimmer Evans Gentithes and Meermans 220 East Market Street Warren Ohio 44481; Dear Mr. Zimmer: Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 15 USC 1381 et. seq., the National Highway Safety Bureau issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 (FMVSS-109). This standard set forth strength, bead unseating, endurance, high speed and labeling requirements for passenger car tires manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, for use on cars manufactured after 1948. This standard does not apply to other types of tires. A copy of FMVSS-109 is enclosed. A manufacturer self-certifies that the tire meets the minimum requirements of the standard by molding the symbol 'DOT' into the tire. Subsequent identification of the tire as a 'second' would not negate the certification.; The National Highway Safety Bureau is currently testing many bran /size tires to verify their conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The tests are conducted at independent laboratories under contract to the Government. Results of these tests are released to the public in a monthly summary.; The test results does not reflect the Bureau's position on the matter Favorable test results should not be interpreted as necessarily establishing that a specific tire is in conformity with the standard, similarly, unfavorable test results should not be interpreted as establishing nonconformance.; Copies of individual test reports con be obtained, for a fee of $3.0 per publication, from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Should sufficient data be left remaining on the tire in question for proper identification you may wish to avail yourself of this service.; There is an organization which could possibly furnish you with the nam of an individual capable of analyzing the causes of tire failures. Their name and address is: America Council of Independent Laboratories, Incorporated. 1714 West Capitol Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007.; I trust this information will be useful to you, and I appreciate thi opportunity to be of assistance.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Compliance, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4366OpenMr. Ernest Farmer, Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Department of Education, Office of Commissioner, Nashville, TN 37219-5335; Mr. Ernest Farmer Director Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Office of Commissioner Nashville TN 37219-5335; Dear Mr. Farmer: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking how ou regulations apply to the refurbishment of used school buses. I would like to apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter, you explained that the Tennessee Department of Corrections plans to use prison labor to 'refurbish' used school buses. The refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. You are concerned that this undertaking might conflict in some way with our regulations applicable to school buses, and posed five specific questions as to how our regulations would apply to your planned refurbishment.; Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide som background information. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*. (sic) gives this agency the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Thus, all new school buses must be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to school buses. Additionally, the Safety Act prohibits commercial establishments, such as repair businesses or school bus dealers, from performing modifications to school buses after they have been sold, if those modifications cause the used bus no longer to comply with the safety standards. As a general rule, however, vehicle owners are not subject to this prohibition, and are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the modified vehicle complies with the safety standards.; It is possible that a vehicle owner's modifications would be s substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle instead of just a modified vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when a modified truck or school bus has been so substantially altered that it is considered a new vehicle, we have set forth specific criteria in 49 CFR S571.7(e) of our regulations. In past interpretations of our regulations, NHTSA has applied S571.7(e) to school buses that are assembled combining new and used components, because school buses are typically manufactured with a truck chassis. Under S571.7(e), a modified school bus or truck is *not* considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission and drive axle(s) are not new *and* at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.; I will now address your specific questions in the order they wer presented:; 1. Has NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of schoo buses?; Yes, we have. As explained above, we have set forth specific criteri to allow refurbishers to determine whether a refurbished school bus is a new bus, subject to all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, or a refurbished used bus.; Further, while we encourage effective school bus maintenance programs we would be concerned if a refurbishment program has the effect of avoiding the replacement of obsolete school buses. The school bus safety standards do not apply to school buses that were manufactured before April 1, 1977. It is possible that a refurbishment program could be used to continuously recondition these old buses that do not comply with any school bus safety standards, and use them for pupil transportation. We believe that school buses complying with the Federal school bus standards are one of the safest means of transportation, and that school bus safety will improve as complying school buses replace older non-complying school buses. We certainly hope that school bus owners will ensure that their fleets are replenished with complying school buses.; In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a Federal Register notice w published on September 23, 1985, (50 FR 38558), which denied a petition for rulemaking from the Blue Bird Company concerning the remanufacture of school buses. In this notice, we expressly encouraged school bus operators to consider voluntarily meeting Federal school bus safety standards when they refurbish their school buses.; 2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer' certification?; The original school bus manufacturer's certification means that th school bus as sold was manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification does not mean that a school bus continues to comply with the safety standards after it is sold, since that obviously depends on many factors beyond the manufacturer's control, such as maintenance, any accidents, any modifications, and so forth. Since the original manufacturer's certification is limited to the vehicle's condition at the time of sale, it cannot be 'voided' by any subsequent actions of the vehicle owner.; If you were asking whether a refurbisher is required to make a separat certification in addition to the original manufacturer's certification, the answer depends on whether the refurbished school bus is considered 'new' or simply refurbished, according to the criteria set forth in S571.7(e). If the refurbished school bus is new according to those criteria, the refurbisher is required to certify that the school bus complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and affix its own certification label to the school bus. If the refurbished school bus is not considered new, the refurbisher is not required to affix another certification label. Instead, the refurbisher simply allows the original manufacturer's certification label to remain on the school bus.; 3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to recertif all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?; The answer to this question depends on whether the refurbished buse are considered new under S571.7(e). If the buses are not new according to those criteria, no additional certification is necessary as explained above. However, the specification sheet for the refurbishment that was enclosed with your letter indicates that the refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. Every school bus that is equipped with a new engine or drive axle would be considered a new school bus, according to S571.7(e). Additionally, each school bus on which the engine, transmission, and/or rear axle are replaced with used components will be considered a new school bus, unless two of those three components came from the same vehicle. If your refurbishing constituted the manufacture of a new vehicle, the State of Tennessee would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles.; As explained above, each refurbished school bus that is new, accordin to the criteria of S571.7(e), must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. However, the manufacturer does not make any certification directly to the agency. Instead, the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to furnish a certification with the vehicle. We have promulgated a regulation that sets forth how each vehicle must be certified as complying with the Safety Act (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed). As you will see, this regulation requires that the manufacturer permanently affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed for your information an information sheet that describes generally the responsibilities of manufacturers of new motor vehicles.; 4. Is the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTS standards?; As explained above, the refurbishment program is permitted, provide that it complies with the applicable requirements.; 5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by th Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?; If the State of Tennessee engages in operations during school bu refurbishing that make it a manufacturer of new vehicles, according to S571.7(e), the State would be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Safety Act itself and this agency's regulations issued pursuant to the Safety Act. The State would also be responsible for remedying any vehicles that either do not comply with applicable safety standards or that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not provide advice on the State's potential liability under State law for manufacturing and refurbishing school buses. Therefore, you might wish to consult an attorney familiar with Tennessee law for information on these matters.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if yo have any further questions on this program.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5065OpenA. Mary Schiavo Inspector General for the Department of Transportation Room 9210 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590; A. Mary Schiavo Inspector General for the Department of Transportation Room 9210 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590; "Dear Ms. Schiavo: Special Agent Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. of your staf asked me to provide you with some information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations dealing with certification and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. This information should prove helpful in connection with an investigation of Bus Industries of America by your office in which Mr. Tucker has been involved. Mr. Tucker presented the following facts. A Canadian company (Ontario Bus Industries, Inc.) manufactured some buses at its plant in Canada. It certified these buses as conforming with all U.S. vehicle safety standards and affixed a label to that effect, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. These buses were then imported into the United States bearing the certification label that had been affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. After the vehicles were imported into the United States, the U.S. company that had imported the buses (Bus Industries of America) removed the Canadian manufacturer's certification label and affixed a new certification label that identified the U.S. company as the manufacturer of these buses. With respect to the information other than the name of the manufacturer, the certification label substituted by the importer was identical to the certification label affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. Mr. Tucker asked us to explain this agency's certification regulations as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and to comment on the assertion that the certification label placed on the buses by the Canadian manufacturer did not meet this agency's certification requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes the following provision at 15 U.S.C. 1403: Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. * * * In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle. NHTSA has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 567) specifying the content and location of, and other requirements for, the vehicle certification label or tag required by this statutory provision. That regulation is relatively straightforward with respect to vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The manufacturer must permanently affix a label containing specified information, including the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the vehicle identification number, and a certification that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in a specified location on the vehicle. The certification regulation becomes more complex in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and certified vehicles that are altered before they have been sold to the public for the first time. In those situations, there is more than one manufacturer's input needed for the certification of the finished vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA has included special provisions in Part 567 specifying the certification requirements for these vehicles and adopted a separate regulation at 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifying the responsibilities of the various manufacturers in ensuring conformity of the completed vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to the Canadian buses described by Mr. Tucker, those vehicles appear to fall into the category of vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The relevant certification requirements for such vehicles are set forth at 49 CFR 567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with 567.4. Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America had argued that it was required to affix its own certification label for two different reasons. First, for some of these buses, Bus Industries of America had produced various component subassemblies (e.g., frame, drivetrain, etc.) and shipped those component subassemblies to Canada to be used in manufacturing these buses. Because of this, Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify the vehicles in its capacity as the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. It is true that 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 impose responsibilities on incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and even allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to assume legal responsibility for the completed vehicle. See 567.5(e) and 568.7(a). However, a party that ships various component subassemblies to another party would not be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of NHTSA's certification regulations. The following definitions appear in 568.3: Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle. Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle. Reading these definitions, it is apparent that a party could not be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer if that party simply produced certain component subsystems and shipped those subsystems off to another party to assemble into a motor vehicle. Based on the facts Mr. Tucker provided this office, the claim that Bus Industries of America should be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer of these buses has no merit. Second, Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify some of these buses because that company had performed minor finishing operations on some buses after it received them from Canada. It may be that Bus Industries of America is suggesting that it should be considered to be a final stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and therefore was responsible for certifying these vehicles per 49 CFR 567 and 568. Alternatively, Bus Industries of America may have been suggesting that it should be considered an alterer of these vehicles, and therefore required to certify them. Neither one of these arguments is supported by the facts. A final stage manufacturer is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as 'a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.' The relevant question then is whether these buses were incomplete vehicles. As specified in the definition of 'incomplete vehicle' quoted above, a vehicle that needs only minor finishing operations is not considered an incomplete vehicle. Instead, only those vehicles that need some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function are considered incomplete vehicles. Since the buses in question had been certified by the Canadian manufacturer as completed vehicles and driven over the public roads from the Canadian plant to the U.S., there is no indication that the buses needed some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function. Hence, Bus Industries of America was not a final stage manufacturer of those vehicles. To the extent that Bus Industries of America wishes to be considered an alterer of a previously certified vehicle, 49 CFR 567.6 expressly sets forth requirements for persons that alter vehicles by performing minor finishing operations. That section provides: 'A person ... who alters such a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle.' The sample of the Canadian manufacturer's certification label that Mr. Tucker provided this office conforms to the requirements of Part 567. Hence, even if one accepts the argument by Bus Industries of America that it performed minor finishing operations on previously certified vehicles, it would have still been subject to an express regulatory duty to leave the Canadian manufacturer's certification label in place. The final point I understand Bus Industries of America to be raising was that only a U.S. manufacturer could certify that a vehicle met the U.S. safety standards. This point is incorrect. A vehicle to be imported into the U.S. must be certified as conforming with all U.S. safety standards before it enters the United States. Such a certification is routinely made by manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States. There is no regulation or law administered by this agency that requires the certification to be made only by a U.S. company. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Special Agent Gerard Tucker DOT Office of Inspector General Linpro Center 900 E. 8th Avenue Suite 201 King of Prussia, PA 19406"; |
|
ID: aiam4693OpenRoger C. Fairchild, Esq. Shutler and Low 14500 Avion Parkway Suite 300 Chantilly, VA 22021-1101; Roger C. Fairchild Esq. Shutler and Low 14500 Avion Parkway Suite 300 Chantilly VA 22021-1101; "Dear Mr. Fairchild: This responds to your request for my opinion o whether a particular vehicle (the Pinzgauer) would be considered a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. When NHTSA previously considered this question, we stated in a March 25, 1982 letter to Mr. Leonard Fink that the Pinzgauer would be considered to be a motor vehicle, based on the information that was available to the agency at that time. However, that letter also stated that the agency would be willing to reconsider this conclusion if additional information were provided regarding the vehicle's marketing, advertising, and actual use. Your recent letter set forth three additional factors that you suggested might lead the agency to change its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer was a motor vehicle. As explained in detail below, this agency reaffirms the previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle. 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. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is 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, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle'. Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated. Vehicles such as the Pinzgauer are not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, the Pinzgauer is obviously designed to have substantial off-road capabilities, as evidenced by high ground clearance, deep water fording capabilities, and all-wheel drive. According to its manufacturer, 95 percent of the annual production of Pinzgauers is purchased by armed forces worldwide. These factors suggest that the Pinzgauer should not be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, the available information shows the Pinzgauer is suitable for use on-road. The vehicle has a top speed of nearly 70 miles per hour. Page 4 of Enclosure 1 of your letter shows that the Pinzgauer is equipped with turn signals and states that the power steering minimizes steering effort 'both in difficult terrain and when parking.' Page 4 of Enclosure 3 with your letter describes the serviceability of the Pinzgauer 'with ordinary on- and off-road usage.' These factors suggest that the vehicle is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, which suggests that it should be classified as a motor vehicle. In instances where the agency is asked whether something is a motor vehicle, when the vehicle has both on-road and off-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, NHTSA has applied five factors to reach its conclusion. These factors are: 1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. 2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. 3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. 4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. 5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. When NHTSA previously considered whether the Pinzgauer should be considered a motor vehicle, the available information regarding these factors showed that the manufacturer had equipped the vehicle with side marker lights, the manufacturer expected the vehicle to be used on-road, and that it would be sold by dealers that also sell vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles. In your letter, you enclosed some additional information and brochures from the manufacturer that show the manufacturer continues to expect Pinzgauers to be used both on- and off-road. Since the manufacturer does not now expect to sponsor the vehicle's sale in the U.S., no information is available on the anticipated dealers. The additional information enclosed with your letter did not specifically address any factors on which no information was previously available to NHTSA. Hence, the agency has no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle. You suggested three reasons that might lead the agency to reverse its previous conclusion. First, you suggested that the 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer has a unique body configuration which distinguishes it from typical, on-road vehicles and makes it particularly well suited to off-road use. You correctly noted that the agency's 1982 letter addressed both the 4-wheeled and 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. However, for the purposes of this analysis, there is no attribute of the 6-wheeled version that would lead the agency to conclude that it should be classified differently than the 4-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. Many vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles have 6 wheels. In all other respects, the 4- and 6-wheeled Pinzgauers have similar on-road capabilities, including a top speed of more than 65 miles per hour. Second, you suggested that NHTSA concluded that the Unimog is not a 'motor vehicle' in a February 7, 1984 letter, and that the Unimog and Pinzgauer are comparable vehicles. In the February 7, 1984 letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber to which you refer, NHTSA stated that it had no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Unimog was not a 'motor vehicle.' NHTSA also noted that this conclusion was based upon the assumptions that Unimog vehicles would continue to be marketed through dealers of farm machinery and heavy equipment and that Unimog vehicles would have a label affixed stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use. In other words, the information available for Unimog (especially regarding factors number 4 and 5 above) was sufficient to lead the agency to conclude that it was not a motor vehicle, even though Unimogs are operationally capable of on-road use. By way of contrast, either no information is available for Pinzgauer vehicles regarding the five factors identified above or, if information is available for a factor, it suggests that the Pinzgauer should be treated as a motor vehicle. Since the Pinzgauer is operationally capable of on-road use, and there is no indication that the manufacturer does not intend for it to spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA reaffirms its previous statement that these vehicles appear to be 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Third, you suggested that NHTSA's 1982 conclusion did not include a consideration of the primary design intent of the Pinzgauer for military purposes and the high percentage of its total sales to the military. NHTSA's 1982 conclusion and this reconsideration both are addressed only to the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer. The military versions of the Pinzgauer would not be subject to the safety standards if their sales satisfied 49 CFR 571.7(c). In both the 1982 and this examination of whether the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer are motor vehicles, the agency fully considered the substantial off-road capabilities of these vehicles. However, absent indications that the manufacturer does not intend the Pinzgauer to spend substantial periods of time on-road, NHTSA concluded in 1982, and reaffirms at this time, that the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer appear to be 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4365OpenMr. Ernest Farmer, Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Department of Education, Office of Commissioner, Nashville, TN 37219-5335; Mr. Ernest Farmer Director Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Office of Commissioner Nashville TN 37219-5335; Dear Mr. Farmer: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking how ou regulations apply to the refurbishment of used school buses. I would like to apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter, you explained that the Tennessee Department of Corrections plans to use prison labor to 'refurbish' used school buses. The refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. You are concerned that this undertaking might conflict in some way with our regulations applicable to school buses, and posed five specific questions as to how our regulations would apply to your planned refurbishment.; Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide som background information. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*. (sic) gives this agency the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Thus, all new school buses must be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to school buses. Additionally, the Safety Act prohibits commercial establishments, such as repair businesses or school bus dealers, from performing modifications to school buses after they have been sold, if those modifications cause the used bus no longer to comply with the safety standards. As a general rule, however, vehicle owners are not subject to this prohibition, and are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the modified vehicle complies with the safety standards.; It is possible that a vehicle owner's modifications would be s substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle instead of just a modified vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when a modified truck or school bus has been so substantially altered that it is considered a new vehicle, we have set forth specific criteria in 49 CFR S571.7(e) of our regulations. In past interpretations of our regulations, NHTSA has applied S571.7(e) to school buses that are assembled combining new and used components, because school buses are typically manufactured with a truck chassis. Under S571.7(e), a modified school bus or truck is *not* considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission and drive axle(s) are not new *and* at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.; I will now address your specific questions in the order they wer presented:; 1. Has NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of schoo buses?; Yes, we have. As explained above, we have set forth specific criteri to allow refurbishers to determine whether a refurbished school bus is a new bus, subject to all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, or a refurbished used bus.; Further, while we encourage effective school bus maintenance programs we would be concerned if a refurbishment program has the effect of avoiding the replacement of obsolete school buses. The school bus safety standards do not apply to school buses that were manufactured before April 1, 1977. It is possible that a refurbishment program could be used to continuously recondition these old buses that do not comply with any school bus safety standards, and use them for pupil transportation. We believe that school buses complying with the Federal school bus standards are one of the safest means of transportation, and that school bus safety will improve as complying school buses replace older non-complying school buses. We certainly hope that school bus owners will ensure that their fleets are replenished with complying school buses.; In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a Federal Register notice w published on September 23, 1985, (50 FR 38558), which denied a petition for rulemaking from the Blue Bird Company concerning the remanufacture of school buses. In this notice, we expressly encouraged school bus operators to consider voluntarily meeting Federal school bus safety standards when they refurbish their school buses.; 2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer' certification?; The original school bus manufacturer's certification means that th school bus as sold was manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification does not mean that a school bus continues to comply with the safety standards after it is sold, since that obviously depends on many factors beyond the manufacturer's control, such as maintenance, any accidents, any modifications, and so forth. Since the original manufacturer's certification is limited to the vehicle's condition at the time of sale, it cannot be 'voided' by any subsequent actions of the vehicle owner.; If you were asking whether a refurbisher is required to make a separat certification in addition to the original manufacturer's certification, the answer depends on whether the refurbished school bus is considered 'new' or simply refurbished, according to the criteria set forth in S571.7(e). If the refurbished school bus is new according to those criteria, the refurbisher is required to certify that the school bus complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and affix its own certification label to the school bus. If the refurbished school bus is not considered new, the refurbisher is not required to affix another certification label. Instead, the refurbisher simply allows the original manufacturer's certification label to remain on the school bus.; 3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to recertif all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?; The answer to this question depends on whether the refurbished buse are considered new under S571.7(e). If the buses are not new according to those criteria, no additional certification is necessary as explained above. However, the specification sheet for the refurbishment that was enclosed with your letter indicates that the refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. Every school bus that is equipped with a new engine or drive axle would be considered a new school bus, according to S571.7(e). Additionally, each school bus on which the engine, transmission, and/or rear axle are replaced with used components will be considered a new school bus, unless two of those three components came from the same vehicle. If your refurbishing constituted the manufacture of a new vehicle, the State of Tennessee would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles.; As explained above, each refurbished school bus that is new, accordin to the criteria of S571.7(e), must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. However, the manufacturer does not make any certification directly to the agency. Instead, the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to furnish a certification with the vehicle. We have promulgated a regulation that sets forth how each vehicle must be certified as complying with the Safety Act (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed). As you will see, this regulation requires that the manufacturer permanently affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed for your information an information sheet that describes generally the responsibilities of manufacturers of new motor vehicles.; 4. Is the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTS standards?; As explained above, the refurbishment program is permitted, provide that it complies with the applicable requirements.; 5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by th Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?; If the State of Tennessee engages in operations during school bu refurbishing that make it a manufacturer of new vehicles, according to S571.7(e), the State would be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Safety Act itself and this agency's regulations issued pursuant to the Safety Act. The State would also be responsible for remedying any vehicles that either do not comply with applicable safety standards or that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not provide advice on the State's potential liability under State law for manufacturing and refurbishing school buses. Therefore, you might wish to consult an attorney familiar with Tennessee law for information on these matters.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if yo have any further questions on this program.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.