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 |
|---|---|
ID: GF002121OpenMs. Alice Dee Rainville Dear Ms. Rainville: This responds to your e-mail of March 29, 2003, and subsequent communication with George Feygin of my staff, concerning your desire to see all newly manufactured vehicles be equipped with fire extinguishers. You also stated that you would like to see all state, county, municipal, and other emergency vehicles be required to have a fire extinguisher within easy access. You asked how one might go about trying to get such laws passed. Let me begin by saying that I am sorry to hear about your familys loss. Below please find our response to your inquiry. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We do not, however, regulate how vehicles are operated or maintained. This is a matter under state or local jurisdiction. Our data show that fires occur in 0.2 percent of vehicles in all crashes, but in 2.9 percent of fatal crashes. In addressing this safety problem, we are focusing our resources on upgrading the Federal standard on fuel system integrity, to limit the amount of fuel spillage during and after frontal, rear, and side impacts. We also have a number of regulatory activities underway to improve occupant protection in crashes. As we continue to conduct our activities, we will bear in mind the contribution that fire extinguishers can make. As to your desire to see state, county, municipal, and other emergency vehicles to be equipped with a fire extinguisher within easy access, you may wish to contact your local and state officials about this request. You might also wish to contact the National Association of State EMS Directors (http://www.nasemsd.org) and/or the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (http://www.aamva.org). I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, please contact George Feygin at (202) 366-2992 or by electronic mail at gfeygin@nhtsa.dot.gov. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2003 |
ID: 08-000763--26 Feb 08--rlsOpenMr. Jack Jay McCracken Assistant Secretary Cooper Tire and Rubber Company 701 Lima Avenue Findlay, OH 45840-2315 Dear Mr. McCracken: This responds to your letter concerning laser-etched[1] date codes in the tire identification number (TIN) required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles, and Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 574 (49 CFR Part 574), Tire identification and recordkeeping. You ask whether FMVSS No. 139 and Part 574 would permit laser-etched date codes in the TIN at a minimum depth of 0.010 inches. Based on the information you provided and the analysis below, the answer to your question is yes, as FMVSS No. 139 and 49 CFR Part 574 do not specify a minimum depth for laser-etched date codes. However, please note that the agency is considering addressing in an upcoming rulemaking whether a minimum depth should be required for laser-etched date codes. By way of background, your letter states that you currently use traditional molded date codes to comply with the TIN requirement, but that you are considering switching to laser etching for the date codes for both technician safety and time-saving reasons. You believe that a laser-etched date code at a depth of 0.010 inches is at least as legible as a traditional molded date code with a depth of 0.020 inches. Further, you note that a depth of 0.020 inches for laser etching may create an undesirable cosmetic effect for some whitewall tires, in that at this depth, the white layer of rubber inside the sidewall would sometimes show through in one or more of the date code numbers. Discussion FMVSS No. 139, at paragraph S5.5.1(b), states that each tire manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 must be labeled with the TIN required by 49 CFR Part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire. 49 CFR Part 574, at 574.5, states that the TIN must be permanently molded into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1. Figure 1 specifies at Note 1: Tire identification number shall be in Futura Bold, Modified Condensed or Gothic characters permanently molded (0.020 to 0.040) deep. Section 574.5 also states that: at the option of the manufacturer, the information contained in paragraph (d) of this section [the date code section of the TIN] may, instead of being permanently molded, be laser etched into or onto the sidewall in the location specified in Figure 1. The question you raise is whether a date code laser-etched in the location specified in Figure 1 may have a minimum depth of 0.010 inches. Our answer is yes. Section 574.5 states that molding must be done in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, but states for etching only that it must be done in the location specified in Figure 1. In addition, Note 1 of Figure 1, as written, specifies the 0.020-0.040 inch depth only for permanent molding. Because 574.5 and Note 1 do not clearly specify that laser etching must be to the same depth as molding, you may laser etch the date codes at a shallower depth than 0.020 inch. Keep in mind, however, that we believe a depth requirement for laser etching should be considered to ensure sufficient long-term legibility of the TIN and date code. We plan to address the issue in an upcoming rulemaking on Part 574. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:574 d.5/8/08 [1] You use the term engraved instead of etched. The regulation at issue, 49 CFR Part 574, uses the term etched. For purposes of this letter, we consider engraved and etched to be synonomous and will use the term etched for consistency with Part 574. |
2008 |
ID: nht79-1.10OpenDATE: 12/05/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Theodore Bargman Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: NOA-30 Mr. Edward F. Tannery Theodore Bargman Company 129 Industrial Avenue Coldwater, Michigan 49036 Dear Mr. Tannery: This responds to your recent letter asking whether doors on aftermarket top covers for American Motors Jeeps would have to comply with Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. Safety Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, which would include Jeeps. The standard applies only to completed vehicles, however, and not to aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the doors on aftermarket Jeep top covers would not have to have locks. Further, doors on new Jeep vehicles would also not have to comply with the standard if they are "designed to be easily attached to or removed from" the vehicle, as provided in section S4 of the standard. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 30, 1979 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th St., S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590 Attention: Mr. Hugh Oates Legal Counsel Dear Mr. Oates: On October 29, 1979 I had a phone conversation with Mr. William Smith discussing the legalities of door latches and their requirements for Jeep Motor Vehicles. I know the requirements for automotive, motor homes, etc., all all under the FMVSS No. 206 and test procedures of S.A.E. for transverse, longitudinal, inertia testing but on the American Motor Jeep, it has no top cover or a canvas type cover. There is only a handle latch without a first and second stop strike, and no locking mechanism. My question is, where can we find information covering such a top if they were to be manufactured or fabricated for the aftermarket by an independent company. Would this type of application require a safety lock or come under a different category? I would appreciate any help you can give on door restraint handles and latches for either canvas tops with side curtains and canvas doors, or fiberglas tops with side doors (entrance doors) for Jeeps. Sincerely, THEODORE BARGMAN COMPANY Edward F. Tannery Vice President of Manufacturing iw |
|
ID: 77-1.33OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/25/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Harley Murray, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your January 25, 1977, question whether a row of eight wheels arranged in a line that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of a vehicle constitute an "axle" as that word is used in S3(b) of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You note that the wheels are not mounted on a single solid axle but rather are mounted on two walking beam assemblies that also constitute the suspensions for a separate set of eight wheels across the vehicle. The answer to your question is yes. When asked for a definition of "axle system" in connection with Standard No. 121, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated: In answer to Wagner's request for a definition of "axle system," the term is used in the same sense as it is used in the definition of GAWR found at 49 CFR 571.3. "Axle system" is used instead of "axle" to avoid confusion in situations where a suspension system does not employ an axle. The term has not created difficulty in the GAWR definition (39 FR 17553, May 17, 1974). The agency's use of "axle" in S3 is intended to be identical to its use of the phrase "axle system." Thus, "axle" means the arrangement of wheels that lie across the vehicle in a line that is perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. This understanding of "axle" and "axle system" is used regularly in the assignment of gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) on vehicles that employ independent suspensions in place of solid axles. From your description, it appears that each row of eight wheels on your trailer constitutes an "axle" or "axle system" that could be rated at a GAWR in excess of 29,000 pounds, qualifying the vehicle for exclusion from Standard No. 121. SINCERELY, HARLEY MURRAY, INC. January 25, 1977 Duane A. Perrin, P.P. Handling & Stability Division SUBJECT: Application of exemption 121 S3 (b) to Murray 16 tire trailer Thanks for the copy of "Standard 121" which we discussed over the phone on December 29th. I am requesting your confirmation that our 16 tire expandable trailer comes under the exemption provided for any vehicle with "(b) An axle that has a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 29,000 pounds or more." Our 16 tire trailer has two rows of eight wheels each. For purposes of permit loading these rows of wheels are designated as axle number 4 and 5 on the State of California Department of Transportation permit form (copy enclosed). My question is this: Do the rows of eight wheels constitute an "axle", as provided for in exemption (b) quoted above? They are not mounted on one solid axle, but are mounted in a walking beam assembly (see picture marked exhibit B). In California, the allowable permit load on this trailer axle grouping is 58,400 pounds when the trailer is expanded to 10 feet. That is a maximum of 29,200 pounds for axle number 4 and 29,200 for axle 5 using the California permit definition of axle. We are using Rockwell-Standard axles with a capacity rating of 20,000 pounds for four wheels or 40,000 pounds for each row (axle?) of eight wheels. That's a total rated capacity of 20,000 pounds for the 16 wheel axle grouping.(two rows). I hope you will agree that the exemption (b) does indeed apply to our 16 tire trailer and that each row of eight wheels constitutes an axle in the federal law 121, as it does in the State of California permit form. If this is the case, we do not need to persue a petition for exemption. If, on the otherhand, wording of the Standard 121 does not exempt our 16 tire trailer we will petition for a modification due to the very tight fit of the brake/ axle/ walking beam assembly on this trailer, which is required to meet height limitations when loaded with heavy oversized equipment as shown in some of the enclosed photos. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If I can clarify this situation or answer any questions please give me a call at (209) 466-6639. Dave Murray |
|
ID: nht94-4.46OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 5, 1994 FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: H. Kristie Jones, President -- P.J.'s Fabrication, Inc., Stanfield, OR TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/18/94 letter from H. Kristie Jones to John Womach TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). You explained that P.J.'s Fabrication (P.J.), which manufacturers trailers, entered into a contract with Coulson Co mmander Trailers (Coulson) to manufacture trailers that will be marketed under Coulson's name. Skip Jones of your company has told Dorothy Nakama of my staff that he does not believe Coulson has any manufacturing capability or that Coulson manufacturers trailers. You ask whether under Standard No. 115, P.J. assigns the VIN to the vehicles. The answer is yes. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that "Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer." The term "manufacturer" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment." According to the information provided in your letter, P.J. fits this definition of a manufacturer. Moreover, you also state that P.J.'s accepts responsibility for warranty work and quality control to meet DOT specifications ." This statement indicates that P.J.'s is certifying the trailers' compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), as a manufacturer must under our certification requirements. Accordingly, all the information presented to us indic ates that P.J. is the trailer manufacturer, and it is therefore appropriate for P.J. to assign the VIN to the trailers. As noted above, you indicate that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Since FMVSS No. 115 applies to the trailers and requires each new trailer to have a VIN, P.J. must assign a VIN to the vehicle in order to correct ly certify that the vehicle meets the FMVSS's (namely, FMVSS No. 115). In other words, since the FMVSS's require a VIN, the trailers must have a VIN by the time P.J. certifies the vehicles as complying with the FMVSS's. You also asked which company issues the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO), that your letter referred to as the "Certificate of Origin." Since MSOs are regulated by state law, for information about each state's requirements, you must contact the st ate's department of motor vehicles. A source of information about each state's requirements is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22203. The telephone number for the AAMV A is (703) 522-4200. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 10287Open Ms. H. Kristie Jones, President Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). You explained that P.J.'s Fabrication (P.J.), which manufactures trailers, entered into a contract with Coulson Commander Trailers (Coulson) to manufacture trailers that will be marketed under Coulson's name. Skip Jones of your company has told Dorothy Nakama of my staff that he does not believe Coulson has any manufacturing capability or that Coulson manufactures trailers. You ask whether under Standard No. 115, P.J. assigns the VIN to the vehicles. The answer is yes. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that "Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer." The term "manufacturer" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment." According to the information provided in your letter, P.J. fits this definition of a manufacturer. Moreover, you also state that "P.J.'s accepts responsibility for warranty work and quality control to meet DOT specifications." This statement indicates that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), as a manfacturer must under our certification requirements. Accordingly, all the information presented to us indicates that P.J. is the trailer manufacturer, and it is therefore appropriate for P.J. to assign the VIN to the trailers. As noted above, you indicate that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Since FMVSS No. 115 applies to the trailers and requires each new trailer to have a VIN, P.J. must assign a VIN to the vehicle in order to correctly certify that the vehicle meets the FMVSS's (namely, FMVSS No. 115). In other words, since the FMVSS's require a VIN, the trailers must have a VIN by the time P.J. certifies the vehicles as complying with the FMVSS's. You also asked which company issues the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO), that your letter referred to as the "Certificate of Origin." Since MSOs are regulated by state law, for information about each state's requirements, you must contact the state's department of motor vehicles. A source of information about each state's requirements is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22203. The telephone number for the AAMVA is (703) 522-4200. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:115 d:10/5/94
|
1994 |
ID: 3008yyOpen Ms. Vel McCaslin Dear Ms. McCaslin: This responds to your letter of April 1, 1991 requesting clarification of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) and Federal regulations at 49 CFR Part 571 as they apply to 15 passenger vans used to transport students from Houston Independent Schools to an After School Program at your church. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has used its authority under the Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of various types of new motor vehicles. One type is the school bus. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for purposes that include transporting students to and from "school or school-related events." Therefore, unless your program would be considered a "school or school-related event," your vehicles would not be considered "school buses" under Federal law. In order for NHTSA to determine if your program would be considered a "school or school-related event," you would need to provide us with further information about your program. Under Federal law, the answer to the question of whether your buses are school buses bears on the legal obligations of the seller, but not those of the purchaser or user, of new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all Federal school bus safety standards if that person is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. However, it is not a violation of Federal law for the purchaser to buy or use a vehicle to transport school children that does not comply with all the Federal standards. Under State, and common law, whether your buses complied with the Federal standards may have legal significance for you as a vehicle user. Since the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles, you must look to Texas law to determine if your After School Program may use noncomplying vans to transport school children. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:571.3 "school bus" d:5/29/9l |
2009 |
ID: nht91-4.7OpenDATE: May 29, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Vel McCaslin -- Program Director, Grace After School TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-1-91 from Vel McCaslin to NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (OCC 5924) TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 1, 1991 requesting clarification of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) and Federal regulations at 49 CFR Part 571 as they apply to 15 passenger vans used to transport students from Houston Independent Schools to an After School Program at your church. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has used its authority under the Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of various types of new motor vehicles. One type is the school bus. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for purposes that include transporting students to and from "school or school-related events." Therefore, unless your program would be considered a "school or school-related event," your vehicles would not be considered "school buses" under Federal law. In order for NHTSA to determine if your program would be considered a "school or school-related event," you would need to provide us with further information about your program. Under Federal law, the answer to the question of whether your buses are school buses bears on the legal obligations of the seller, but not those of the purchaser or user, of new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to SELL any new vehicle that does not comply with all Federal school bus safety standards if that person is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. However, it is not a violation of Federal law for the purchaser to BUY or USE a vehicle to transport school children that does not comply with all the Federal standards. Under State, and common law, whether your buses complied with the Federal standards may have legal significance for you as a vehicle user. Since the individual States have authority over the USE of vehicles, you must look to Texas law to determine if your After School Program may use non- complying vans to transport school children. In addition, using non- complying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht68-2.17OpenDATE: 06/04/68 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA TO: Wayne Manufacturing Company TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 18 stating your uncertainty as to whether certain products of Wayne (945 Four Wheel Street Sweeper, Sanivac, 900 Three Wheel Street Sweeper, and Brush Clipper, 12 and 16 inch size) are regulated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since a "motor vehicle" subject to regulation by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 in "any vehicle driven . . . by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . ." (Section 102(3)) both the four wheel street sweeper line and the Sanivac are subject to the Federal standards, specifically those applicable to trucks. They are "designed primarily for the transportation of . . . special purpose equipment" (23 C.F.R. @ 255.3(b)). Accordingly these vehicles must be manufactured in conformity with all Federal standards applicable to trucks, and certification provided to distributors and dealers pursuant to section 114 of the Act. For your guidance I enclose a copy of a Certification Notice with which Wayne should comply. I also enclose a copy of PL 90-283 adding new section 123 of the Act, which I do not believe was included with the Act, standards and amendments, and chassis-cab ruling that Mr. O'Gorman sent Mr. Vermes on May 17 in response to his letter of March 12. On the other hand, the three wheel sweeper, while a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Act, does not fall into any of the vehicle types, thus far defined to which standards are applicable, and consequently there are no standards applicable to it at this time. It is unclear from the brochures you enclosed on the 12 and 16 inch Brush Clipper whether these are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Act. We are, of course, pleased to see the emphasis on safety shown by the seven features listed in the descriptive literature on those products, but request that you supply more information covering the use of these machines, such as location of clipping operations, size of towing vehicles etc. |
|
ID: nht73-2.18OpenDATE: 04/24/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R.B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Flex-N-Gate TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: In your letter of April 17, 1973 to Mr. Schneider you ask whether the Federal lighting standard, No. 108, applies to you as a manufacturer of rear step-hitch bumpers for pick-up trucks. Since the bumper installation interferes with the original vehicle license plate mounting bracket, provision is made for relocating the license plate mounting bracket, provision is made for relocating the license plate in the bumper. You apparently do not yourself mount the bumper to the vehicle, as your letter indicates that they are sold as after market items "to purchasers of new trucks" and to two truck manufacturers "who install these items before the trucks are released to the dealers". Under the circumstances you describe, Standard No. 108 would not apply to you. Compliance and certification of new vehicles is the responsibility of the truck manufacturers who install the bumpers, although you may have a contractual obligation with them to provide license plate lighting meeting Federal requirements. In the aftermarket, if the bumper is installed prior to delivery of the truck to the purchaser, the dealer making the installation is legally responsible for compliance with Standard No. 108. Yours truly, April 17, 1973 Lawrence R. Schnieder Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Schnieder: We manufacture rear step-hitch bumpers for pick-up trucks, and market them through dealers who sell them as add on accessories to purchasers of new trucks. We also are an O.E.M. supplier to Jeep Corporation and Toyota who install these items before the trucks are released to the dealers. As the bumper installation interferes with the original license light mounting bracket on the vehicle we make provisions for relocating the license plate onto the bumper (see attached brochure). I would like to get your interpretation of Standard 108, i.e. whether it applies to us or not, if it does then the proper way of certifying that the license lights meet the federal requirements. Sincerely, SHAHID R. KHAN Engineer -- FLEX-N-GATE (Graphics omitted) |
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.