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: nht90-3.28OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: July 24, 1990 FROM: Roman L. Cepeda TO: Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from P.J. Rice to Roman L. Cepeda (A36; Part 591) TEXT: I was advised by Guam Customs to write and inquire from your office the requirements to import stainless steel jeep body from the Philippine. The stainless steel jeep body are molded in the Phillipine in 8 to 12 parts. The molded jeep body would then be put together on Guam. The engine, chassis, all other parts other than the stainless steel body are from Guam. The stainless steel jeep body is not a motor vehicle and is not required to meet any provision of the U.S. 49 CFR Part 400 to 999. Perhaps, you could clear this misunderstanding with Guam Customs with a simple letter advising them that I can import stainless steel jeep body from the Philippine with out violating the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and U.S. 49 CFR Part 400 t o 999. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. |
|
ID: 1984-1.5OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 01/27/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Mr. John Lindig -- President, Lindig Manufacturing Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. John Lindig President Lindig Manufacturing Corporation 1875 W County Rd C St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 This is in response to your December 5, 1983 letter regarding the applicability of Federal vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements to brush chipper trailers manufactured by your company. With very limited exceptions, all trailers are subject to VIN requirements and to certain other requirements under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Trailers which are manufactured exclusively for off-road purposes or those whose on-road use is limited to travel between work sites, with extended stays at individual work sites, are excluded. Trailers whose on-road use is restricted to travel between work sites, but whose stay at any particular site would not typically be an extended one, have been considered subject to our requirements. In particular, the agency has in the past issued interpretation letters stating that brush chipper trailers are subject to our requirements, including VIN requirements. Therefore, it is our view that your trailers are covered by those requirements.
Enclosed is information on how to obtain copies of our regulations. Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
December 5, 1983
Dear Sir:
Recently, an equipment dealer that sells our products in California, advised us that his customer had been notified by the State of California, that a federal Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) was required for Lindig products which may be towed behind a car or truck.
A copy of the form letter of the State of California is enclosed. Palomar Tractor Co. is our dealer. The machine in question is a Lindig Model XR16 brush chipper. The Lindig XR16, plus similar machines such as our XK9 and XW12 chippers are landscape/construction machines. They are used to process tree branches into small woodchips. They are equipped normally with a gasoline or diesel engine...but are not self propelled. They must be towed from one job site to another, normally by a pickup truck or similar type of vehicle. They are not used to transport other machines or products, but are road towable only so that the machine itself may be moved to a new work location. Similar types of road towable units would be cement mixers, air compressors etc.
The State of California indicates that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 requires the VIN to be assigned, and it appears California feels that our brush chippers are covered by Standard 115.
From our limited understanding of this matter, we believe that products such as ours, are not in fact covered.
We ask for an opinion in this regard.
Sincerely, Original signed by John Lindig, President Lindig Manufacturing Corporation 1875 W County Road C St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 |
|
ID: 1983-2.11OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/20/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company -- Tom Caine, Law Dept. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Tom Caine, Esq. Law Department The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316
Dear Mr. Caine:
This responds to your recent letter in which you asked for an interpretation concerning the status of tires which are manufactured by applying new tread to a new casing. Specifically, you ask whether such tires should be considered retreaded tires or new tires subject to the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any tires manufactured by applying new tread to new casings would be considered new tires rather than retreaded tires, and would be subject to the same requirements as any other new tires. Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR 571.117), defines the term "casing" as follows: "Casing means a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading." In the situation you described in your letter, the casing is not a used tire. It is simply a new tire which has never had any tread attached to it. That casing would not be considered a used tire until the casing and the new tread attached to it had been used on the highway and the remainder of the tread then buffed off the casing to allow the application of another new tread. With the addition of the new tread, the used tire would become a retreaded one.
I would appreciate it if you would forward any factual information you have about the proposed importing of new casing to this agency's office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. This will help us ensure that all imported new casings with new treads attached to them are subjected to the new tire performance tests.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
Dear Mr. Berndt:
I have been advised that it has been proposed to import into the United States new (unused) tire casing - both auto and truck casings which will then have new treads applied to the casings in a manner similar or identical to existing retreading processes. If the casing in question are in fact new (unused) and a new tread is applied to the casing, it would seem to me that the finished product is a new tire, not a retread, and subject to the testing and certification requirements of the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. It would also seem to follow that the person or company producing such a finished product for sale to the public would be required to comply in all respects with Part 574 of Title 49 CFR including the obtaining of a new tire manufacturer's identification mark.
Will you please advise as to whether the application of a new tread to a new (unused) tire casing constitutes the manufacture of a new or a retreaded tire.
Sincerely, T. D. Caine Attorney |
|
ID: nht73-2.27OpenDATE: 04/04/73 FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL TO: PAUL K. WILSON -- TRUCK TRAILER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO DONALD W. VIERIMAA, NOA 30, REDBOOK A22, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/09/81 FROM DONALD W. VIERIMAA TO FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA, EXCLUSION OF THE TOWBAR OF A PERMANENT TRAILER DOLLY FROM THE FMVSS 108 LENGTH CRITERIA TEXT: Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1973, asking whether a towbar dolly must be included in determining the overall length of semitrailers for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The answer is no. Standard No. 108 is a manufacturing standard, and semitrailers are not manufactured with dollies attached. 49 CFR S390.7, to which you refer, is a definition of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety which regulates the operation of certain motor vehicles, and since trailers often use converter dollies, it is understandable that that agency would deem a trailer with a dolly a "full trailer." Yours truly, [DIAGRAMS OMITTED] |
|
ID: nht75-4.3OpenDATE: 08/28/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Dennis Replansky TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your recent request for a discussion of what constitutes the manufacture of a new trailer when used components from an existing trailer are utilized. As you are aware, a newly-manufactured air-braked trailer must, in all but a few cases, be equipped with an air brake system that conforms to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The use of new components in combination with used components to assemble a complete vehicle is a common practice in both truck and trailer operations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized this commercial practice by establishing that the use of a new body on a used "chassis" that has already been certified does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. In contrast, placing a used body on a new chassis that has never been certified as a vehicle has been determined to create a newly-manufactured vehicle that must be certified. This distinction did not present difficulty to trailer manufacturers in the past, when they were only required to meet the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Since implementation of Standard No. 121, however, manufacturers have had to determine whether the particular assembly they undertake contains a used "chassis" which would not be required to meet the air brake standard. As a general matter, the NHTSA has stated that, as a minimum, the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and main frame of the existing vehicle must be used to qualify as a used "chassis". However, the many different types of trailer construction make it difficult to determine what constitutes the main frame of some configurations. The NHTSA has concluded that the load-bearing structural member(s) which run the length of the vehicle and support the trailer will be considered to be the "main frame". In the case of monocoque van construction, the trailer side walls which constitute the main load-bearing members through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. In the case of container chassis, the box frame that consitutes the main load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run the length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacturer of a new vehicle. In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run the length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacturer of a new vehicle. In the case of a tank trailer in which the tank serves the purpose of and replaces frame rails, the tank must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. If a separate frame serves as the load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle, the tank could be replaced without the operation constituting the manufacture of a new vehicle. An inner tank may be replaced without certification as a new vehicle if the inner tank does not serve as a main load-bearing member. Modifications of existing trailers to increase or decrease volumetric capacity or vehicle length are generally permitted without recertification. For example, the barrel of a tank trailer may be lengthened in response to the new weight limits without recertification of the vehicle. In closing, it should be noted that Bureau of Motor Carrier regulations may differ on modification or rebuilding of vehicles in interstate commerce. SINCERELY, BLANK, ROME, KLAUS & COMISKY July 24, 1975 James C. Schultz, Esquire Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation - NHTSA A number of our clients in the motor vehicle industry have raised questions concerning the applicability to rebuilt trailers of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, especially Standard #121, Air Brake Systems. Unfortunately, Standard #121 does not define "manufacture" for purposes of determining applicability. The following factual situation has arisen most often: A manufacturer's customer presently has trailers, commonly called "chassis", which are used solely for hauling containers. The equipment represents a considerable investment. At present, the customer's trailers are obsolete because they cannot carry the new I.S.O. containers. The customer has asked the manufacturer to modify the old trailers to permit them to use the new I.S.O. containers. The manufacturer will do this by taking the customer's old axle assembly (composed of the axles, brakes, wheels, drums, rims, tires and certain connecting parts) and adding to that a new structural frame, namely a box frame and fittings, to permit each trailer to carry the new I.S.O. containers. Does Standard #121, Air Brake Systems, apply to such rebuilt trailers? We would appreciate your guidance. DENNIS REPLANSKY CC: TAD HERLIHY |
|
ID: 77-2.30OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/06/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Collins Industries Inc. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This confirms your April 19, 1977, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the definition of school bus. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defined school bus in a notice issued on December 31, 1975 (40 FR 60033) to mean "a bus that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." This definition incorporates by reference the definition of bus (49 CFR Part 571.3) which is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Therefore, by definition a school bus is a vehicle that carries more than 10 persons (e.g., 10 passengers and a driver). This does not preclude smaller vehicles from transporting school children. Vehicles carrying 10 or fewer persons would not have to comply with the school bus construction requirements. I am enclosing a copy of the notice that established the school bus definition. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact us. |
|
ID: nht74-3.50OpenDATE: 06/03/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: American Retreaders' Assoc., Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of April 7 and April 8, 1974, regarding Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires." Your April 7 letter asks whether Standard No. 117 requires treadwear indicators to be straight across the tread face. Your letter of April 8 encloses two sample rubber labels and asks whether each conforms to the requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 117. Paragraph S5.1.1(b) of Standard No. 117 does not specify a configuration for treadwear indicators. Rather, it incorporates by reference the requirements for treadwear indicators of S4.2.1(d) of Standard No. 109, which calls only for a treadwear indicator that provides a "visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch." We do not construe this language to require a straight-across treadwear indicator and other configurations are therefore permitted. With respect to the labels you enclose in your letter of April 8, each would conform to all of the requirements of S6.3 (which includes the requirements for both affixed (S6.3.1) and permanent (S6.3.2) labeling) if the tires to which they are affixed are of neither bias-belted or radial construction. If they are of either of these construction types, that information would have to be included either through affixed or permanent labeling, including retention of the original casing labeling. AMERICAN RETREADERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. April 7, 1974 Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration In the manufacture of retreaded tires we have a need for clarification as to what constitutes a "tread wear indicator." We are aware of a specific height requirement of 1/16" but are not clear as to whether it must be straight across the tread face or if some other type of configuration is acceptable. Thank you for your assistance. E. J. Wagner Managing Director AMERICAN RETREADERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. April 8, 1974 Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration I have enclosed two sample rubber labels that we have been recommending to retreaders to affix to the sidewall of their product in order to comply with Section S6.3 as it now stands. There has been some question as to whether this label complies with the requirements of S6.3. May we have your views on this? Thank you for your assistance. E. J. Wagner Managing Director |
|
ID: nht95-6.14OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 15, 1995 FROM: Glenn J. Vick -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GLENN J. VICK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 221; PART 567; PART 568) TEXT: Attention: Office of Chief Council. This is to request your assistance in providing me with clarification on FMVSS 221 (Body Joint Strength). Our engineering staff is in the process of introducing a new E-350 super duty for the school bus industry. The GVW rating of this unit will be 14,050 lbs. Ford Motor Company will manufacture the the E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab to be delivered to various body companies for after market installation of the school bus body . . . ie, Collins, US Bus, etc . . . I am confused as to how [Illegible Word] FMVSS 221 standard will apply to our chassis. Please provide me with a written clarification regarding FMVSS 221 and how it applies our E-350 cut-away chassis. If you need additional information or have any questions, you may contact me at (313) 323-9617. |
|
ID: nht95-3.91OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 15, 1995 FROM: Glenn J. Vick -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GLENN J. VICK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 221; PART 567; PART 568) TEXT: Attention: Office of Chief Council. This is to request your assistance in providing me with clarification on FMVSS 221 (Body Joint Strength). Our engineering staff is in the process of introducing a new E-350 super duty for the school bus industry. The GVW rating of this unit will be 14,050 lbs. Ford Motor Company will manufacture the the E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab to be del ivered to various body companies for after market installation of the school bus body . . . ie, Collins, US Bus, etc . . . I am confused as to how [Illegible Word] FMVSS 221 standard will apply to our chassis. Please provide me with a written clarification regarding FMVSS 221 and how it applies our E-350 cut-away chassis. If you need additional information or have any questions, you may contact me at (313) 323-9617. |
|
ID: nht75-2.5OpenDATE: 11/25/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: E. H. Wallace - Tire Division, OCA TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Demonstration of Prototype Tires That are Not Certified as Complying with FMVSS No. 109 This is in response to your inquiry concerning the circumstances under which the demonstration of prototype tires would be permitted. I understand that representatives of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. are visiting the NHTSA to discuss a newly designed passenger car spare tire which is not certified as complying with Standard No. 109. They wish to mount, on cars which have been driven to the DOT headquarters building on complying tires, samples of the spare tire and then to demonstrate the tire's performance on the local streets. This demonstration would violate Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, because use of such tires on the public roads would constitute an introduction in interstate commerce of an item of motor vehicle equipment which did not conform with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. The alternative which you have suggested, mounting and demonstration of the tires on a runway at Bolling Air Force Base or other place out of the public traffic stream, is not prohibited by the Act or by our regulations. |
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.