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: nht91-3.5OpenDATE: April 1, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Mark A. Pacheco -- Vice President, Innovative Industries of Tampa, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Mark A. Pacheco to Department Of Transportation, NHDSA (OCC 5800) TEXT: This responds to your letter in which you asked about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a "Walk Machine," looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as: (A)ny 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. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has 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. Your letter did not indicate whether the "Walk Machine" would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a "motor vehicle" even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the "Walk Machine" indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles. Because this vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203. |
|
ID: nht79-1.2OpenDATE: 11/20/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Allan E. Cameron Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp. State Route 182 East P.O. Box 337 Upper Sandusky, Ohio 43351 Dear Mr. Cameron: This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning the labeling requirements of Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, as they would apply to "permanently crimped" hydraulic brake hose assemblies. Under the standard, a brake hose assembly must be labeled according to the specifications of either S5.2.9 or, at the option of the manufacturer, S5.2.4.1. Under S5.2.4.1, the brake hose end fitting must be permanently labeled with a designation (at least one-sixteenth of an inch high) that identifies the manufacturer and has been registered with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It is not necessary under this option, however, to stamp the symbol "DOT" on the end fitting, to stamp a date on the end fitting or to attach a band or label to the hose assembly. The band or label is only required under the first option, S5.2.4. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 2, 1979 Highway Safety Law Division Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Washington D.C. 20590 Attention: Mr. Hugh Oates. Subject: MVSS - 106 Dear Mr. Oates, Continental Hydraulic Hose Corporation is a manufacturer of hydraulic brake hose assemblies. Our products are permanently crimped. We are not a vehicle manufacturer. Our interpretation of Paragraph S-5.2.4 and new S-5.2.4.1 as it applies to our labelling requirements is: 1) One end fitting shall be steel stamped with the designation "CH" in letters 1/16" high or more. This designation is on file with your office. 2) It is not necessary that the letters "DOT" be stamped on the hose fitting. 3) It is not necessary that a date be stamped on the hose fitting. 4) It is not necessary that a band or label be attached to the hose assembly, so long as designation in item 1 above is met. Please advise if you disagree. Sincerely, Allan E. Cameron Vice President AEC/rw |
|
ID: nht76-3.43OpenDATE: 02/18/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to Oshkosh Truck Company's January 22, 1976, question whether a vehicle that complies with S5.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake System, when it is moving must also comply with the requirement when it is stationary. Section S5.1.1 specifies an air compressor of sufficient capacity to increase air pressure in the supply and service reservoirs from 85 p.s.i. to 100 p.s.i. within a limited period when the engine is operating at the vehicle manufacturer's maximum recommended rpm. Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is moving as a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they affect the outcome of testing. Yours truly, ATTACH. January 22, 1976 T. Herlihy -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Herlihy: Based on discussions with Sid Williams it is my understanding that section 5.1.1 of FMVSS 121 does not require that compressor buildup time be tested when the vehicle is stationary. If the vehicle meets compressor buildup time when it is moving, but exceeds compressor buildup time when the vehicle is stationary, it is my understanding that the vehicle qualifies. Please confirm. Sincerely, Danny Lanzdorf -- Supervising Engineer cc. J. Westphal; D. Thekkanath |
|
ID: nht93-5.10OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 7, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Lanny Kness -- Coach Design Engineer, Chance Coach, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/93 from Lanny Kness to John Womack TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of two sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays (49 CFR S571.101). You ask whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. As explained below, the answer is no. You also ask whether S5.3's illumination requirements can be met by two different means: reflected light, and an overhead light. The answer is no. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Your first question asks whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. S5.1 specifies location requirements for each control listed in S5.1 "that is furnished." S5.1 does not require manufacturers to furnish any control, such as a hand-operated turn signal control, or prohibit manufacturers from providing an unlisted control, such as a foot-operated turn signal control. While FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR S 571.108) specifies the "turn signal operating unit" as required equipment, it does not specify that the unit be hand operated. (See S5.1.1 and Table I of FMVSS No. 108.) Your second question asks whether the following proposed method of illuminating the windshield wiper/washer control complies with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101. You state that the wiper/washer control is located on the dashboard and at night, the "control knob's identification" can be barely seen from indirect lighting coming from other controls and displays. The wiper washer control would become "very discernible" by turning on an "overhead driver's controlled light." For the following reasons, the above described method of illuminating the wiper/washer control would not comply with Standard No. 101. S5.3.3(a) requires means to be provided to make controls visible to the driver under all driving conditions. S5.3.3(b) states that "the means" (emphasis added) for providing the required visibility: (1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in S5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.
S5.3.3(b) therefore requires that a single control (i.e., "the means") be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness. Under your proposal, however, two different means must be used to provide two levels of brightness. The overhead driver's light would provide one level of brightness, that makes the control "very discernible." The other level of brightness (one barely discernible to the driver) is provided from reflected light given off by other controls and displays located on the dashboard. Since no single "means" that you propose for illumination would be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, your proposal would not comply with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 8559aOpen Mr. Lanny Kness Dear Mr. Kness: This responds to your request for an interpretation of two sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays (49 CFR 571.101). You ask whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. As explained below, the answer is no. You also ask whether S5.3's illumination requirements can be met by two different means: reflected light, and an overhead light. The answer is no. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Your first question asks whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. S5.1 specifies location requirements for each control listed in S5.1 "that is furnished." S5.1 does not require manufacturers to furnish any control, such as a hand-operated turn signal control, or prohibit manufacturers from providing an unlisted control, such as a foot-operated turn signal control. While FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108) specifies the "turn signal operating unit" as required equipment, it does not specify that the unit be hand operated. (See S5.1.1 and Table I of FMVSS No. 108.) Your second question asks whether the following proposed method of illuminating the windshield wiper/washer control complies with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101. You state that the wiper/washer control is located on the dashboard and at night, the "control knob's identification" can be barely seen from indirect lighting coming from other controls and displays. The wiper washer control would become "very discernible" by turning on an "overhead driver's controlled light." For the following reasons, the above described method of illuminating the wiper/washer control would not comply with Standard No. 101. S5.3.3(a) requires means to be provided to make controls visible to the driver under all driving conditions. S5.3.3(b) states that "the means" (emphasis added) for providing the required visibility: (1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in S5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions. S5.3.3(b) therefore requires that a single control (i.e., "the means") be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness. Under your proposal, however, two different means must be used to provide two levels of brightness. The overhead driver's light would provide one level of brightness, that makes the control "very discernible." The other level of brightness (one barely discernible to the driver) is provided from reflected light given off by other controls and displays located on the dashboard. Since no single "means" that you propose for illumination would be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, your proposal would not comply with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:101#108 d:7/7/93 |
1993 |
ID: 3117yyOpen David A. McClaughry, Esq. Your ref: 0364-50108 Dear Mr. McClaughry: This responds to your letter of July 11, l991, with respect to the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to a sale of motor vehicles to the United States Navy. The Navy has proposed specifications for the design of a zero-emission motor vehicle which may not meet some of the FMVSS. You are aware of the exemptions that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides for military vehicles, and that l5 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(C) provides, upon the Administrator's grant of a petition, for low-emission motor vehicles. These raise certain questions which you have asked us to answer. First, you would like our interpretation of "military vehicle." The definition of "military vehicle" is that contained in section 571.7(c): a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. This means any vehicle that the military purchases. However, if the contractual specifications require compliance with the FMVSS, the military vehicle must be manufactured to conform to the FMVSS. You have asked whether the exclusion extends "only for FMVSS or all safety standards." The exclusion of section 571.7(c) is only from the FMVSS. However, vehicles that are owned by the United States Government bear Government registrations. They are not subject to State licensing laws, and, therefore, are exempt from State vehicle safety standards. You have also asked if there are other military safety standards that the vehicles must satisfy. We are unaware of any military safety standards, but, if such standards exist, they would be standards of the Department of Defense, and not those of the Department of Transportation. Finally, you have asked whether your client should attempt to obtain a low-emission vehicle temporary exemption under section 1410(a)(1)(C). Because of the existing exclusion from FMVSS compliance, we see no need for such an exemption if the vehicle is sold exclusively to the Navy or another branch of the military. However, if your client intends to sell the military-specification vehicle to an entity other than the Armed Forces of the United States, it must either comply with all applicable FMVSS at the time of manufacture and sale, or be exempted under one of the four subsections of section 1410(a)(1). Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:57l d:8/2/9l |
2009 |
ID: nht91-5.13OpenDATE: August 2, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: David A. McClaughry -- Harness, Dickey & Pierce TITLE: Your ref: 0364-50108 ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-11-91 from David A. McClaughry to Paul Jackson Rice TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 11, 1991, with respect to the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to a sale of motor vehicles to the United States Navy. The Navy has proposed specifications for the design of a zero-emission motor vehicle which may not meet some of the FMVSS. You are aware of the exemptions that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides for military vehicles, and that 15 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(C) provides, upon the Administrator's grant of a petition, for low-emission motor vehicles. These raise certain questions which you have asked us to answer. First, you would like our interpretation of "military vehicle." The definition of "military vehicle" is that contained in section 571.7(c): a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. This means any vehicle that the military purchases. However, if the contractual specifications require compliance with the FMVSS, the military vehicle must be manufactured to conform to the FMVSS. You have asked whether the exclusion extends "only for FMVSS or all safety standards." The exclusion of section 571.7(c) is only from the FMVSS. However, vehicles that are owned by the United States Government bear Government registrations. They are not subject to State licensing laws, and, therefore, are exempt from State vehicle safety standards. You have also asked if there are other military safety standards that the vehicles must satisfy. We are unaware of any military safety standards, but, if such standards exist, they would be standards of the Department of Defense, and not those of the Department of Transportation. Finally, you have asked whether your client should attempt to obtain a low-emission vehicle temporary exemption under section 1410(a)(1)(C). Because of the existing exclusion from FMVSS compliance, we see no need for such an exemption if the vehicle is sold exclusively to the Navy or another branch of the military. However, if your client intends to sell the military-specification vehicle to an entity other than the Armed Forces of the United States, it must either comply with all applicable FMVSS at the time of manufacture and sale, or be exempted under one of the four subsections of section 1410(a)(1). |
|
ID: 7400Open Mr. Le Van Lac Dear Sir: This responds to your letter of June 5, 1992, with reference to your plan to sell a new car speaker in the U.S. It will be installed "in the rear deck" with the "Pioneer brand name to be printed on the rear side of the speaker cabinet." The brand name will be lit "with blue color at night" and "there are 8 lamps for each left and right speaker." The brightness of the lamp is "just 1/40 of the high mount stop lamp." You believe that the "illuminated speaker will not impair the effectiveness of the existing lighting equipment installed into the car." We understand that the speaker will be sold as aftermarket equipment, not as original equipment. Installation of the speaker by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is permissible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as long as it does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any of the rear view mirror or lighting equipment that is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The drawing you enclosed, and the description of the speaker, are insufficient for us to provide you a definitive interpretation. For instance, it is not possible to tell whether the light is oriented to the rear, so that it will be seen through the rear window, adjacent to the center highmounted stop lamp, or whether it is oriented to the front, so that it will reflect in the rear view mirror. In either location, it may have the potential to affect negatively the safety performance of rear view mirrors or the rear center stop lamp. Taylor Vinson of this Office telephoned your company on June 22, suggesting that it furnish a clearer drawing and a better description. As of the date of this response, we have heard nothing further from you. Further, there are state laws that prohibit illumination in vehicle interiors under certain conditions. We are unable to advise you of these laws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to provide you with an interpretation. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:VSA d:7/31/92 |
1992 |
ID: 19623.ztvOpenMr. Tadashi Suzuki Dear Mr. Suzuki: This is in reply to your letter concerning the testing of reflectors of replaceable lens headlamps for chemical and corrosion resistance. I apologize for the delay in our response. Under the test procedure established by S8.10.1(c), after test fluids are applied to headlamp reflectors, the reflectors "shall be wiped clean with a soft cotton cloth . . . ." You remark that the force applied to the reflector during cleaning is not specified, noting that if Stanley wipes the reflector "so gently that the surface would not be damaged, the headlamp will meet the requirements prescribed in S7.4(h)(2)," but, "on the other hand, if we wipe the reflector without any carefulness, the surface might be damaged." In your opinion, this means that "some kind of attention is needed to meet the requirement of S7.4(h)(2)." You ask "if such kind of attention is permitted under S8.10.1(c)." S5.8.11 of Standard No. 108 requires that a replacement lens for a replaceable lens headlamp must be provided with a replacement seal in a package "that includes instructions for the removal and replacement of the lens, the cleaning of the reflector, and the sealing of the replacement lens to the reflector assembly." Although you reference only the chemical resistance test of S8.10.1(c), we note that the corrosion test contains a specific requirement that "the reflector shall be cleaned according to the instructions supplied with the headlamp manufacturer's replacement lens" (S8.10.2(b)). The instructions for the cleaning of the reflector may specify the force recommended to be applied for this operation. If the instructions do not specify the force needed to wipe the reflector clean, we would interpret the test procedure as encompassing the range of force levels that technicians would reasonably employ to perform the required task. Thus, in a compliance test where instructions are silent as to the force to be used, no special care would be taken to use the minimum possible force, nor would the technician deliberately use excessive force. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: 30102 - What is a motor vehicle - Mac Yousry - 14-000891 5.1.14Open
Mr. Mac Yousry Global Vehicle Services Corporation 1892 N. Main St. Orange, CA 92865
Dear Mr. Yousry:
This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation as to whether a crane that manufacturer XCMG plans to import into the United States is considered a motor vehicle. Based on the information you have provided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider this mobile construction crane to be a motor vehicle.
You have enclosed technical specifications with photographs and detailed descriptions that discuss the crane at issuethe XCMG XCT90U. You provided supplementary information during phone conversations with Ryan Hagen of my office.
By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is a manufacturers responsibility to determine whether a motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. The Vehicle Safety Act considers importers to be manufacturers. Manufacturers (importers) must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.
If a vehicle is a motor vehicle, it must comply with all applicable FMVSSs to be imported into the United States (Vehicle Safety Act, 30112(a)). The question presented is whether the XCMG XCT90U is a motor vehicle.
Section 30102(a)(6) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as follows:
a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.
We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle." Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles because the highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, and not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.
From your letter, specification sheet, and phone conversations, we understand the following about the XCT90U: It has a curb weight of 112,169 pounds and a top speed of 62.5 miles per hour. The crane is manufactured primarily for use on fixed job sites and only sees incidental road use for travel from one job site to another. The manufacturer estimates that a typical crane will travel 1,000 miles and service 15 job sites per year. The technical specifications state that the XCT90Us [m]ulti-axle plate spring balance suspension contributes to better passing ability
Some of the information about the XCT90U, such as the better passing ability and top speed, seem to indicate the vehicles use on the highway would be beyond incidental. However, given that the XCT90U would spend almost a month at a job site as well as other factors, we believe the on-road use of this equipment is not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Further, the XCT90Us boom specifications, lifting capacity, and overall appearance are similar to the crane evaluated in our letter to Mr. Michael E. Ogle, which we determined was not a motor vehicle.[1] Therefore, we do not consider the XCT90U to be a motor vehicle.
Please note that the views expressed in this letter are limited to the XCMG model XCT90U. This letter is not generally applicable to all XCMG vehicles. Our interpretation is based on the information you have provided us. In the event contrary information emerges, the agencys opinion is subject to change.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ryan Hagen of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Dated: 6/10/15 49 U.S.C 30102
[1] See letter to Michael E. Ogle, Schiller International Corp. (October 20, 2003) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/004597drn.html). |
2015 |
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.