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: aiam5059OpenMr. Ray Wyatt 5207 N. 33rd St. Phoenix, AZ 85018; Mr. Ray Wyatt 5207 N. 33rd St. Phoenix AZ 85018; Dear Mr. Wyatt: This letter responds to your inquiry regarding th conversion of race cars into cars for use on the public roads. I apologize for the delay in this response. As I understand the question, based upon your letter and subsequent telephone conversations with David Elias of my staff, you intend to convert a race car designed for use solely on a race track into a vehicle that can be used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations for you. NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) defines 'motor vehicle' as one 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways... .' 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The Safety Act requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its new motor vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1403) and prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). However, these requirements apply only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). After that first purchase, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops are thus free to modify vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle. However, these entities are prohibited from performing any modification that would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. In addition, unlike the situation with new vehicles, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops that modify used motor vehicles are not required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. Hence, if these race cars had ever been certified as motor vehicles complying with the safety standards, your conversions would be subject only to the 'render inoperative' prohibition of the Safety Act. Your situation appears to be different, however, in that you wish to place a race car, which had never been certified, on the public roads. Race cars are not 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act, so no party has ever certified that these vehicles meet the applicable safety standards. This means that the first introduction into interstate commerce or sale of these converted race cars as 'motor vehicles' for the purposes of the Safety Act would be by you after you perform the conversion. Accordingly, you would be legally responsible for certifying that the converted race cars comply with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with the regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. As a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle under the provisions of the Safety Act, you would also be subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. This means that if either you or the agency determined that a non-compliance with a safety standard or safety related defect exists in your converted vehicles, you, as the manufacturer, would be required to notify purchasers of the determination and remedy the problem without charge to the purchaser. I have enclosed for your convenience an information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a brief overview of our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations. You may also want to contact the State of Arizona to learn whether there are any state laws or regulations that would affect the conversion of a racing car to a passenger automobile, and its sale and registration in the state, as well as the insurance ramifications of such a conversion and sale. If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact David Elias of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam2266OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's February 13, 1976, questio whether 47 described intersections of bus body components qualify as 'body panel joints' subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*. You also ask what test procedures are used in testing joints if the means described in S6.1.1 or S6.1.2 cannot be employed due to the configurations of the intersecting components.; The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of th standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 47 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that the areas corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs of your letter are bus body joints and therefore must meet the 60-percent joint strength requirements: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 26, 28, 29, 50.; The front and rear headers described in paragraphs 2 and 12 ar considered primarily structural and have only an incidental role in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered 'body panels' for purposes of the requirements.; The wire molding discussed in paragraphs 3 and 10 is considered maintenance access panel, excluded from the requirements only if a wire is installed behind the molding.; The bumper trim strip described in paragraph 17 is not considered t have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.; Your assumption that components located entirely below the level of th floor line are not subject to the standard is correct. However, body panels that do 'enclose bus' occupant space' because a portion lies above the floor line are subject to the requirements. Thus, the rear center skirt described in paragraph 16, the bumper trim panel described in paragraph 18, and the auxiliary cross members described in paragraph 21 are not subject to the requirements.; The rubrails described in paragraphs 22, 23, 27, 28, and 29 are no themselves considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and therefore are not considered body components for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which they are fastened, they should be modified as necessary to prevent them from affecting testing of the underlying joint.; The wheelhousing trim described in paragraph 24 is not considered t have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.; Because the plywood described in paragraph 25 is attached to a floo panel and is only added to some buses for insulation purposes, it is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.; The extruded aluminum trim described in paragraph 30 is not considere to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.; The NHTSA agrees that paragraphs 30 through 36 and 38 through 4 describe joints between maintenance access panels and the bus body. The ventilation duct in paragraph 37 is the type of ventilation space that is not subject to requirements for joint strength.; In many of your requests for clarification, you asked what means woul be employed to test joints in which the two body components in question are not flat surfaces in the same or parallel planes. The NHTSA intends to test joints that are not capable of being tested as specified in S6.1.1 or S6.1.2 by determining the nature of the two body components and testing identical materials joined by the same means as is used by the school bus manufacturer. The materials will be flat and conform to the dimensions described in Figure 1, and they will be oriented in the same fashion as described in Figure 1. For example, the 90-degree angle at the joint described in paragraph 20 is ignored for purposes of the NHTSA test procedure by simulating the joint and using opposing forces in the same or parallel planes. In this way, the agency can examine a manufacturer's technique to see if the fastening method constitutes the exercise of due care in complying with the joint strength requirement.; You also asked what procedure would be used in testing joints wher more than two panels or body components are joined by one fastener (example in paragraph 29). In these cases, the definition of 'body panel joint' in S4 describes several joints, involving one at each intersection area that qualifies as joint. For each pair of components, the tensile strength of the weaker panel is determined, and the joint is required to sustain a load of not less than 60 percent of that tensile strength. For example, in the case of two side panels riveted to a bow, one joint would be between the two lapped panels and 60 percent of the weaker panel would be the test requirement. At the same time, a separate test of the joint between the bow and the panel that contacts the bow would be required, with 60 percent of the weaker component's tensile strength established as the level of strength for testing.; I trust that this discussion will permit a determination of wha portions of your products are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221 and what test procedures are employed in satisfaction of the requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5409OpenJames H. Shuff, President Freedom Trailers P.O. Box 31, Brownfield Road Eaton, NH 03832; James H. Shuff President Freedom Trailers P.O. Box 31 Brownfield Road Eaton NH 03832; "Dear Mr. Shuff: This responds to your letter asking whether tires an wheel rims used with your 'park model travel trailers' are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. As explained below, the answer is no, because your travel trailers are not motor vehicles. Your letter provided the following information about your 'trailers.' The trailers are intended for recreational use, rather than for year round living. Each unit is a maximum of 400 sq. ft., and may be as wide as 12 feet. You state that after your trailers are constructed, they 'will be towed to their campsite and set up,' where they may be used for 'winter camping in the year round parks.' Once your trailers are set up, you would reuse the tires and rims. By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. authorizes NHTSA to regulate new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including tires and rims. Standard No. 120, and all of our safety standards, apply only to vehicles that are 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the statute. The term 'motor vehicle' is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as: 'motor vehicle' means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. We have determined that your 'trailers' are not motor vehicles based on two examinations. First, while the characteristics of your trailers are not entirely clear in your letter (our repeated attempts to reach you by telephone have been unsuccessful), it appears that your trailers could be considered 'mobile homes.' Mobile homes are regulated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and are not 'motor vehicles' subject to regulation by NHTSA. Accordingly, tire and rim selection for mobile homes is not subject to Standard No. 120 or any other NHTSA regulation. For information about mobile homes, you can contact the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th St., SW, Washington, DC 20410. Second, even if your 'trailer' is not a mobile home, it does not meet the Safety Act definition of a 'motor vehicle.' We have interpreted the definition as follows. Vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles, such as mobile construction equipment, that use the public roads only to travel between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. In such cases, the use of the public roads is incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. On the other hand, 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 found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. Based on your description, it appears that, analogous to mobile construction equipment, the on-road use of your travel trailers appears to be incidental and not the primary purpose for which they are manufactured. Therefore, your trailers are not subject to Standard No. 120's requirements for tire selection and rims. Please note that this conclusion is based solely on the facts presented in your letter. We may reexamine this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant a reexamination. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1919OpenMr. Sumner Meiselman, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Sumner Meiselman Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Meiselman: This responds to the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association March 28 1975, request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) review its position that building a trailer from new materials in combination with the running rear of an existing trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards. You also request confirmation that modification of the barrel of a tank trailer to replace compartments or to add to its volume does not constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; NHTSA has already reconsidered its interpretation of what constitute the manufacture of a new truck in cases where components from an existing vehicle are used. Based on the high value of the drive train components found in powered vehicles, NHTSA has proposed an amendment of Part 571 that would supplant its earlier interpretation that, to constitute repair, the chassis of the existing vehicle must as a minimum be used in the new vehicle. The proposed amendment would establish that, in the assembly of a truck, a new vehicle is manufactured for purposes of compliance with and certification to applicable safety standards, unless the engine, transmission, and rear drive axles (as a minimum) of the rebuilt vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from an existing vehicle whose identity is continued in the rebuilt vehicle with respect to model year, vehicle identification number, and any other documentation incident to the vehicle's remanufacture and registration.; Our interpretation of what constitutes manufacture of a new traile (when use of components from an existing vehicle is involved) parallels our present interpretation of truck rebuilding in this area. We regret any confusion in our use of the term 'chassis', but we have made clear that the running gear and main frame of an existing vehicle, must, as a minimum, be used in the rebuilding of a vehicle to be considered a repair. I enclose copies of two letters which establish this point.; NHTSA does not view the manufacture of trucks and trailers a sufficiently similar to justify attempting to apply our newly-proposed position on truck rebuilding to trailer manufacture. The primary consideration of extremely high value of drive train components found in powered vehicles is not applicable to trailer manufacture. NHTSA also concludes that the economic considerations which discourage avoidance of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, in truck manufacture do not operate in trailer manufacture.; In regard to tank trailer modifications where the tank serves th purpose of and replaces the frame rails, we would not consider replacement of compartments in the tank to be manufacture of a new vehicle. Similarly, the addition of volume in response to the new weight limits would not constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3924OpenB. Craig Killough, Esq., 14 North Adgers Wharf, Charleston, SC 29401; B. Craig Killough Esq. 14 North Adgers Wharf Charleston SC 29401; Dear Mr. Killough: This is in response to your letter dated March 5, 1985 inquiring as t whether South Carolina has obtained approval under 49 CFR S580.4(f)(1) to eliminate the odometer disclosure requirements of 49 CFR S580.4(d).; Some background information may be helpful. Title IV of the Moto Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires vehicle sellers to make certain odometer disclosures, as specified in our regulations (49 CFR S580.4). The general rule is that all information specified in S580.4(a)-(e) must be included on the disclosure form. However, S580.4(f)(1) provides that, if the disclosure is made on the certificate of title, the information specified in S580.4(d) need not be included. If the state wishes to make other variations in the information disclosed on the title, it must obtain approval from this agency to do so.; This agency has not granted approval to South Carolina for use of an alternative odometer disclosure procedures. Nor, to my knowledge, has South Carolina fully incorporated the information required by 49 CFR S580.4(f)(1) into its certificate of title. Please note, however, that if in the future the state does incorporate into its title the appropriate language contained in the regulation, it need not obtain the approval of this agency in order to use that title in lieu of a separate form.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2636OpenMr. James M. Beach, Director of Engineering, Collins Industries, Inc., P. O. Box 58, Hutchinson, KS 67501; Mr. James M. Beach Director of Engineering Collins Industries Inc. P. O. Box 58 Hutchinson KS 67501; Dear Mr. Beach: This responds to your June 23 and July 8, 1977, letters asking severa questions about the effect of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, on the construction of school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) below 10,000 pounds.; You first ask whether there are any seat performance requirements fo the rearmost seat after April 1978. The rear seat has been exempted from the forward and rearward performance requirements of the standard. This exemption was possible since there are no passengers seated behind the rear seat who could impact with it in a crash situation. Therefore, the rear seat may be positioned against the rear panel if it does not protrude into the emergency exit zone.; In a second question, you ask whether the head protection zon requirements (S5.3), as well as the requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, and S5.1.5, are applicable to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less since these buses are required to have seat belts. The answer to your question is yes. Section S5(b) of the standard states that all of the above sections are applicable to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less.; In connection with your question concerning the head protection zon requirements, you submitted sketches of the sidewall and roof structure of one of your buses. In that sketch you depict a 50th percentile adult and show the proximity of that adult with the sidewall-roof structure. You question whether a portion of the bus structure above the window is part of the roof structure subject to the head protection zone requirements. The NHTSA has determined that the portion of the interior skin that is depicted by the diagonal line connecting the horizontal roof line to the vertically contoured line representing the sidewall is part of the roof structure and must comply with the requirements of the standard for head protection.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4648OpenMr. Terry Hudyma Vice President, Engineering LAFORZA Automobiles, Inc. 3860 Bay Center Place Hayward, CA 94545; Mr. Terry Hudyma Vice President Engineering LAFORZA Automobiles Inc. 3860 Bay Center Place Hayward CA 94545; "Dear Mr. Hudyma: Thank you for your letter requesting a interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked about certification requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles that will be assembled in Italy and in Michigan. I apologize for the delay in this response. The vehicles in question will be assembled in Italy to the extent that they will be 'complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.), transmission and transfer case in Italy.' These assemblies will then be imported into the United States where the vehicles will be completed. You state that both the operations in Italy and in Michigan will be performed pursuant to a contract with LAFORZA, who will have 'complete control over the manufacturing process at all times.' It is your understanding that in the fact situation described above, LAFORZA is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore LAFORZA is responsible for affixing the certification label on the completed motor vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. You asked us to confirm this interpretation. We cannot do so. Under our law and regulations, the company that completes the vehicles in Michigan is a 'manufacturer' of the vehicles in question. The information provided in your letter is inadequate to allow us to determine whether LAFORZA might also be considered a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles. The first issue to be addressed in our analysis is whether the products in question are 'incomplete vehicles' when they arrive in the United States. An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as: ... 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. Your letter states that the products that arrive in the United States will not have an engine or transmission, which means they will not have a power train. Accordingly, 568.3 makes clear that these products would not be 'incomplete vehicles' for the purposes of our regulations. In previous interpretations, we have referred to products that do not qualify as 'incomplete vehicles' as an 'assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment'. In those previous letters, we have stated that the assemblage should be labeled as items of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States and that the importer of the assemblage must certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. See the enclosed May 6, 1985 letter to Mr. Hayley Alexander. This finding also means that the Italian company that produces these 'assemblages of items of motor vehicle equipment' is not a 'manufacturer' of motor vehicles with respect to the vehicles in question. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5), the Safety Act) defines a 'manufacturer' as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' In this case, the Italian company producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment has not manufactured or assembled any motor vehicles, nor has it imported any motor vehicles. Hence, it does not fit the statutory definition of a 'manufacturer' of the vehicles in question. After these assemblages are imported into the United States, the operations performed by the Michigan company will transform the items of motor vehicle equipment into a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Michigan company would be a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Since 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to include the name of the manufacturer, the vehicles could comply if the name of the Michigan company were shown on the certification label. The information in your letter was inadequate to allow us to make even a tentative determination of whether LAFORZA may also be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. The agency discussed the issue of vehicles with more than one 'manufacturer' at length in its proposal to establish rules of attribution for determining which of the manufacturers would be responsible for complying with the phase-in requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). In that proposal, NHTSA said: Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . .' to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic principles of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles. 50 FR 14589, at 14596, April 12, 1985. According to your letter, LAFORZA has a contractual relationship with the company in Italy that is producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and a contractual relationship with the company in Michigan that is assembling the motor vehicle. These contractual relationships led you to assert that '... LAFORZA Automobiles will have complete control of the manufacturing process at all times.' If LAFORZA merely has contractual relationships under which it purchases products for resale from the companies in Italy and Michigan, LAFORZA would not be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles. If you can provide us with information about any role LAFORZA has in producing these vehicles besides contracting with other companies to assemble the vehicles, we will review that information and offer our interpretation of whether LAFORZA could be considered a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. Hans W. Metzger LAFORZA Safety Consultant 6323 E. Turquoise Avenue Scottsdale, Arizona 85253"; |
|
ID: aiam3477OpenMr. John Kime, Century Motor Coach, 59140 County Road 3 South, Elkhart, IN 46517; Mr. John Kime Century Motor Coach 59140 County Road 3 South Elkhart IN 46517; Dear Mr. Kime: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of September 15, 1981 with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the agency's certification requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles. Your specific question was whether an alterer has to certify that the vehicle, as altered, is in compliance with all applicable safety standards affected by the alterations as of the date of the completion of the alterations or as of the date of the manufacture of the original vehicle. As explained below, an alterer may, at his or her option, choose either date.; The agency's certification regulations are set forth in Part 567 *Certification* (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed. Section 567.7 of the regulation applies to persons who alter certified vehicles. Section 567.7 specifies the content of the certification statement that must be affixed to the vehicle by the alterer. The portion of the regulation pertinent to your question is section 567.7(a) which provides that the alterer must state:; >>>'This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) i (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alterations and in effect in (month, year).' The second date shall be no earlier than the manufacturing date of the original vehicle, and no later than the date alterations were completed....<<<; Thus, the regulation allows an alterer the option of choosing eithe the date of original manufacture or the date of completion of the alterations as the date for determining which safety standards apply.; As you requested, I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*. Section 4.2.2 specifies the requirements applicable to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1976.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4218OpenMr. Edward T. Fennell, Jr., Amilite Corporate, 666 Old Country Road, Garden City, NY 11530; Mr. Edward T. Fennell Jr. Amilite Corporate 666 Old Country Road Garden City NY 11530; Dear Mr. Fennell: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1986, concerning the markin requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. You explained that your company represents several glazing manufacturers that make windshields. You said that your company sometimes receives orders from other companies asking to have a windshield made for them with their own corporate logo marked on the windshield. You asked if a company can, with the permission of the other company, mark a windshield with the other company's logo and its own DOT identification number. As discussed below, such a practice is permissible.; Section 6 of Standard No. 205 sets forth the certification and markin requirements for glazing materials. Section 6.1 requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material in accordance with section 6 of American National Standard 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (ANS Z-26). One of the requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26 is that a manufacturer mark its glazing with its own 'distinctive designation or trademark.' In addition to those requirements, S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material designed to be used in a specific vehicle with the symbol 'DOT' and a manufacturer code mark assigned by this agency. The standard defines a prime glazing manufacturer as 'one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.'; One reason for the marking requirements of Standard No. 205 is to ai the agency in identifying the actual manufacturer of the glazing for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Since, in the situation you described, the prime glazing manufacturer will be placing its own DOT code mark on the glazing, the agency's ability to identify easily and accurately the manufacturer of the glazing will not be impaired. Therefore, we would not consider the use of another manufacturer's logo on the glazing to be a violation of the standard as long as the prime glazing manufacturer has marked the glazing with its own DOT code mark.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3027OpenMr. Troy Martin, Chief of Specifications, State Board of Control, 111 East 17th Street, Austin, TX 78711; Mr. Troy Martin Chief of Specifications State Board of Control 111 East 17th Street Austin TX 78711; Dear Mr. Martin: This confirms your May 23, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of m staff in which you asked whether it is permissible for vehicles to be modified by the addition of propane gas systems replacing their regular fuel systems.; As Mr. Tilton stated, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration permits the type of modification mentioned above. If the modification is done to a new vehicle, the person making the modification would be required to attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, *Certification*, of our regulations. That label states that the vehicle, *as altered*, continues to comply with all safety standards. The standard that may be affected by such a modification would be Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. If used vehicles are being modified, the person modifying the vehicle would not be required to attach a label. However, that person would be responsible for noncompliance with safety standards if he or she knowingly rendered inoperative any element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.