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: 11658DRNOpen Mr. Louis Kleinstiver Dear Mr. Kleinstiver: You have asked me to explain the effect of differing State and Federal definitions of school buses on the obligations of vehicle dealers. The Federal definition of "school bus" affects the scope of the Federal requirements only, while the definitions of the various States affect the scope of State school bus requirements only. The Federal definition determines which new vehicles sold or leased by dealers are required under Federal law to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The definitions of the various States determine which vehicles are subject to the State operational requirements for school buses. Under Federal law, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a capacity of 11 persons or more, including the driver. A bus is a "school bus" if it is to be used to transport children to and from school or school-related events. If a State chooses to define "school bus" to include only buses with a capacity of 16 persons or more, that definition would not affect the obligations of dealers in selling or leasing 11 to 15-person buses under Federal law. If a dealer sold or leased a new bus of this size for school transportation, the dealer would nevertheless have to ensure that the bus was certified to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. A dealer selling or leasing a new bus for school use that does not meet the school bus standards would be subject to a civil penalty. As you requested, I am enclosing two question-and-answer sheets about school bus issues, one of interest to motor vehicle dealers, and another of general interest. I am also enclosing copies of two interpretation letters. The first letter, dated December 29, 1977, is addressed to the Kentucky Department of Education, and concerns the applicability of our school bus standards to vans. The second letter, dated November 25, 1985 to Thomas Built Buses, explains that NHTSA considers a Head Start facility as a preprimary Aschool@ for the purpose of NHTSA's school bus standards. In addition, some vehicle manufacturers have written guidelines to assist their dealers to determine whether vehicles are being sold for use by schools and school districts. Dealers should contact their manufacturers for any such information. If you have any questions regarding Federal school bus requirements, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:571.3 d:4/17/96
|
1996 |
ID: 17757.ztvOpenFrank Zalar, Quality Engineering & Regulatory Manager Dear Mr. Zalar: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1998, on optical axis markings for sealed beam headlamps. Paragraph S7.8.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, to be equipped with headlamps which have a mark or markings to identify the lamp's optical axis that are visible from the front of the headlamp when installed on the vehicle. You present two types of markings for our consideration which you believe will satisfy this requirement. The first headlamp lens marking is a "window" which is centered on the optical/mechanical axis of the lamp. We confirm that this is a sufficient marking under S7.8.1(b). The second headlamp lens marking comprises "horizontal and vertical lines formed by flute edges of the lens the centermost of which denote the optical axis of the lamp." If the lamp does not employ horizontal flute edges at the lamp center, the headlamp center will be marked to indicate the optical axis. The intersection of the centermost horizontal and vertical lines also appear to be a sufficient marking under S7.8.1(b). If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 86-4.48OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/18/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. T. Chikada TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan
Dear Mr. Chikada:
This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1986, asking for our advice on a decorative lighting device for motorcycles. The general principle remains the same as when I last explained it to you. Please refer to my letter to you dated March 24, 1986 (copy enclosed) on the relationship of paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to auxiliary lighting devices for motorcycles. If you conclude that the device would not impair the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 then paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.
You may follow this guideline with reference to any future questions you may have about the permissibility of auxiliary motor vehicle lighting devices. The agency does not approve or disapprove of specific items of lighting equipment.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
July 7, 1986
Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.
Re.: Instlallation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No.108
Dear Ms. Jones,
We would like to ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.
This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose an illustration and a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp. Lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp.
We are looking forward to your advice.
Sincerely yours,
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.
Enc. Drawing 1 : The outlines of the device Drawing 2 : The details of the device (Graphics here) |
|
ID: 2860oOpen Mr. Robert Cuzzi Dear Mr. Cuzzi: This responds to your letter asking whether buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are excluded from coverage under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.301, Fuel System Integrity. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 301 applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and to all new school buses. The buses you manufacture for sale as municipal transit buses are excluded from Standard No. 301 because their GVWR is greater than the 10,000 pound limit established for the standard. You asked also whether there are any other Federal standards that might apply to the fuel tanks on your transit buses. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) for their direct reply as to the applicability of any FHWA or UMTA regulations to your transit vehicles. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to see whether that agency has any requirements affecting the fuel tanks on your buses. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:301 d:6/17/88 |
1988 |
ID: 1983-3.16OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 10/27/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Rivkin; Sherman & Levy TITLE: CSA INTERPRETATION TEXT:
NOA-30
Mr. Donald M. Schwentker Rivkin Sherman and Levy 900 l7th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006
Dear Mr. Schwentker:
This is in response to your August 29, 1983 letter regarding the classification of a four-wheel drive vehicle with variable ground clearance, for fuel economy standards compliance purposes. The vehicle's suspension is adjustable to lower the body during cruise mode, to provide increased on-highway stability. In the high clearance mode, the vehicle meets the criteria in 15 U.S.C. 2001(3) and 49 CFR 523.5 for "automobiles capable of off-highway operation," but it would have insufficient ground clearance to meet that definition in the cruise mode.
As you correctly note in your letter, the phrase "capable of off- highway operation" focuses on the ability of a vehicle to perform off-highway functions." (Emphasis added.) The vehicle in question has high ground clearance capability when needed to facilitate off-road driving. You also note that four-wheel drive capability, one of the necessary criteria to meet the "automobile capable of off-highway operation" definition is typically not a permanent operating mode, but is selectable by the driver when needed. We conclude that the off-road driving criteria on 49 CFR 523.5 need not be met on a permanent basis, so long as the driver can control the availability of the off-road capability.
Therefore, we agree that the vehicle in question, based upon your description, would be classified as an "automobile capable of off-highway operation," and therefore included in the light truck category for standards compliance purposes. See 15 U.S.C. 2001(2) and 49 CFR 523.5.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
August 29, 1983
Roger C. Fairchild, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591
Interpretation of 49 CFR S523.5, Light Truck Definition
Dear Mr. Fairchild:
As you know, 49 CFR S523.5 defines a light truck for for corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) purposes under Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.
A vehicle may qualify as a light truck if it is an automobile (other than a passenger automobile) designed for off-highway operation . Section 523.5(b) provides that an automobile may be classified as one "capable of off-highway operation" if it ".. . has 4-wheel drive .. . and .. . at least four of the .. . (five characteristics ( specified in S523.5(b)(2)."
I interpret this regulation to mean that if these characteristics are met during certain driving modes, the automobile is "capable of offhighway operation" and is , therefore , a light truck. Specifically, if the vehicle's suspension system is adjustable to lower the body during cruise mode to provide increased on-highway stability (during which mode only two of the five specified criteria are met, rather than the required four) , the vehicle should still qualify as a light truck. The logic of this interpretation is supported by the fact S523.5(b) refers to "an automobile capable of off-highway operation" and that the 4-wheel drive characteristic specified in S523.5 (b) (1) is virtually always selectable by the operator, and not full-time. (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, I would appreciate, at your earliest convenience, confirmation of the interpretation that the required four of the five characteristics specified in 49 CFR Section 523.5(b) (2) need not be met under all driving conditions for a vehicle to be classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes.
Sincerely yours,
RIVKIN SHERMAN and LEVY Donald M. Schwentker DMS:kg |
|
ID: 15105.drnOpen Norman A. Shubert, Esq. Dear Mr. Shubert: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a new corporation (your client, Great Dane Limited Partnership, "G.D. Ltd."), may use the world manufacturer identifiers (WMI) of two companies it has acquired (Pines Trailer Limited Partnership, "Pines Trailer," and Great Dane Trailers, Inc., "Great Dane Trailers"). Our answer is G.D. Ltd. may continue to use the WMIs that had been assigned to Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers. Your letter stated that Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers were each assigned a WMI "effective for the 1981 model year." After G.D. Ltd. was formed in January 1997, it "acquired the manufacturing plants, equipment and proprietary rights to manufacture and distribute truck trailers" under both the Pines Trailer and Great Dane names and logos. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that G.D. Ltd. does not manufacture motor vehicles, has no intention of manufacturing motor vehicles, and is not assigned a WMI. You further stated that all Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers rights to manufacture motor vehicles were transferred when G.D. Ltd bought the rights and property of both entities. Your letter stated that G.D. Ltd. intends to maintain the unique product line and product design of Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers as separate divisions. Your letter stated that G.D. Ltd. does not presently intend to merge "the manufacturing facilities or product lines of the separate divisions." NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, states that the WMI shall "uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." (49 CFR section 565.6(a)) In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has interpreted "uniquely identify" to mean that the same WMI cannot be used for two corporate entities if there is a possibility the two entities will be confused. We agree that the facts of G.D. Ltd.'s case are similar to those in our March 20, 1997 letter to Monaco Corporation. As was the case in Monaco, in G.D. Ltd.'s case, no WMI is assigned to the parent company (G.D. Ltd.), but a division (in G.D. Ltd.'s case, each division, Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers) has a WMI. NHTSA was assured in the Monaco case that there are no plans for the parent company, Monaco, to manufacture motor vehicles (which would require assigning a WMI). Similarly, in your letter to NHTSA, you assure us that G.D. Ltd. itself will not manufacture truck trailers or any other motor vehicles. You have also assured us that Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers will remain separate divisions, and advertised as separate trade names. Because the relevant facts in your client's case and Monaco's are similar, we arrive at the same decision in your case as we did in Monaco's. Since G.D. Ltd. itself is not assigned a WMI, but its two divisions have separate WMIs, we agree that G.D. Ltd. may continue to use the WMIs that were assigned to Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers. Under the facts described, there would be no confusion as to which corporate entity manufactured the motor vehicle. A copy of this letter will be sent to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which has a contract to administer the WMI system for NHTSA. The SAE will make appropriate notations in its records about G.D. Ltd., Pines Trailer, and Great Dane Trailers, and may contact you if it needs further information. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, cc: Ms. Cathy Douds ref:565 |
1997 |
ID: nht76-5.18OpenDATE: 03/09/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Wenke; Burge & Taylor TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your February 10, 1976, letter concerning the determination of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for boat trailers. You have presented the following two examples: GVWR -- 3300; GAWR -- 2970 and GVWR -- 3000; GAWR -- 2700. Assuming that 10 percent of the trailer's loaded weight is carried by the towing vehicle, each example reflects a permissible relationship between the GVWR and the GAWR. Your letter indicates that your client presently provides a GVWR figure of 3000 pounds, based on the load carrying capacity determined when the trailer is not connected to a towing vehicle. If by this you mean that the boat trailer's axle system has a load carrying capacity of 3000 pounds, then the trailer would actually be entitled to a GAWR of 3000 pounds and a GVWR of 3333 pounds. Your client is free, of course, to establish more conservative load ratings. However, the GAWR should not be less than 9/10 of the accompanying GVWR. Yours truly, ATTACH. WENKE, BURGE & TAYLOR February 10, 1976 Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Your File No. N40-30 Dear Mr. Dyson: Thank you for your letter of January 15, 1976 concerning the determination of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for a boat trailer. I want to confirm with you my understanding of your letter by an example so that I can be certain I am properly advising my client. The trailers manufactured by my client presently provide a certification that provides a GVWR figure based on the load carrying capacity determined when the trailer is not connected to a towing vehicle. That is, a typical trailer would carry ratings as follows: GVWR - 3000; GAWR - 3000. Assuming, for example, that 10% of the trailer weight and load is carried by the towing vehicle, it would appear that my client is presently providing a GAWR higher than necessary. Can the label be changed to reflect a lower GAWR in either of the following ways: GVWR - 3000 GAWR - 2700 or GVWR - 3300 GAWR - 2970 Thank you for your consideration and please call me collect at the above number if you should have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, John F. Evans |
|
ID: nht95-1.29OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: January 17, 1995 FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Mariano Garcia, Esq. -- Ricca & Whitmire, P.A. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/24/94 letter from Mariano Garcia to NHTSA Chief Council (OCC 10463); Also attached to 12/3/91 letter from Paul Jackson Rice to Matthew Plache (VSA 102(3)); Also attached to 10/31/88 letter from Stephen Wood/Erika Jones to Hiroshi Kato TEXT: Dear Mr. Garcia: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Kawasaki Mule KAF 450-B1, with a top speed of 25 miles per hour, is a motor vehicle. You describe the Mule as an "off-road" light utility vehicle, and enclose a photocopy of what appears to be a Kawasaki brochure describing the Mule. The Mule is similar to two on and off-road capable vehicles, reviewed by NHTSA for a determination whether the vehicles are motor vehicles. Enclosed are two interpretation letters, one to Mr. Matthew J. Plache, dated December 3, 1991, and one to Mr. Hir oshi Kato dated October 31, 1988. Both letters addressed vehicles which could attain a top speed of 25 miles per hour and were not intended by their manufacturers to be used on the public roads. Both letters describe five criteria which NHTSA applies when determining whether a vehicle with on and off-road capability is a motor vehicle. We do not have sufficient information to apply the five criteria to the Mule. However, we believe that if the facts are known, the criteria are easily applied, and a determination whether the Mule is a motor vehicle may be made. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
|
ID: 19882.drnOpenPastor Carlo DeStefano Dear Pastor DeStefano: This responds to your April 14, 1999, letter requesting information on Federal statutes governing school bus safety. Dorothy Nakama of my staff spoke to your secretary, who informed us that your church operates Fairwinds Christian School, which teaches students from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Ms. Nakama was informed that you seek information about the school bus safety laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to determine what your responsibilities are when transporting your students. I am pleased to provide the following information. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." Our statute thus regulates primarily manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. Any person selling a new school bus must sell a vehicle that is certified as meeting our school bus standards. Conventional buses (including 15-passenger vans) are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold, as new vehicles, under circumstances where they are likely to be used to carry students on a regular basis. In general, our school bus safety statute does not regulate school bus users. Instead, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. You should check Delaware law to see what your State law requires when your private school transports its students. For information on Delaware's requirements, you can contact Delaware's State Director of Pupil Transportation:
In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue. I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: nht93-4.25OpenDATE: June 7, 1993 FROM: Ben F. Barrett -- Associate Director, The Legislative Research Department, State of Kansas TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/93 from John Womack to Ben F. Barrett (A41; Part 571.3) TEXT: A Kansas school district recently has expressed its desire to use a 15-passenger vehicle, which I believe generally is categorized as a "bus," to transport students to and from school or to and from school-related activities. But, the district does not want to cause these vehicles to meet the additional safety requirements of a "school bus." However, it is my understanding that if such a vehicle is used to transport students, it is under the federal law of a "school bus." Our state law, among other things, defines a "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for transporting more than ten passengers in addition to the driver. The suggestion is that the state law be amended so as to exclude the 15-passenger vehicles from the state's "school bus" definition. No doubt, proposals of this type previously have been called to your attention. It would be helpful to us to obtain your comments concerning the consequences of such legislation, both with respect to any federal sanctions that might relate to this type of nonconformity and to liability or other issues that might merit attention. Thank you for your assistance. |
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.