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: 09-000883drn sanford mar 25 09OpenLisa M. Sanford, Esq. Hunton & Williams, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0005 Dear Ms. Sanford: This responds to your letter asking whether a non-profit organization may hire drivers and purchase 15-passenger vans to transport students from school to an after school activity, then home. Our answers are provided below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 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 FMVSSs. In the school bus context, the statute requires any person selling a new school bus[1] to sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applying to school buses. A multi-function school activity bus (MFSAB) may be sold if the to-or-from-school transportation does not involve school bus route transportation (i.e., that does not involve transporting students between home and school). An MFSAB is a school bus that meets all the school bus FMVSSs except those requiring the installation of traffic control devices (flashing lights and stop arms). You first ask if your client may purchase 15-passenger vans to transport the children from school to the after-school activities and then home. The enclosed letter of July 17, 1998 to Greg Balmer addresses this issue. In the letter to Mr. Balmer, we state that-- The pertinent issue is not whether the YMCA [i.e., the entity providing the transportation in the Balmer letter] is a school, but whether the bus will be significantly used to transport school children to or from school (as described in Section 30125). If the bus will be used for such a purpose, a school bus must be sold, regardless of whether such transportation is provided by a school, a day care facility, or any other entity. In the situation presented by your client, it is anticipated that the buses will be used regularly to take students from school to their after-school activities. In such a situation, dealers selling a new bus[2] must sell a new bus that meets all applicable school bus or MFSAB standards. In addition, we have had numerous safety campaigns to warn people of the risk of rollover in conventional 15-passenger vans. There are some actions that consumers can take to mitigate this risk. Information can be found at www.safercar.gov and clicking on the van safety link. We encourage purchasers to consider purchasing a school bus or MFSAB to transport school-age children. While NHTSA regulates the first sale of new vehicles, NHTSA does not regulate how the vehicles are to be used. Questions about what vehicles may be used to transport children are addressed by State law, since the State has the authority to determine how the children must be transported to and from school or school-related activities, including the transportation of children by day care centers and non-profit organizations. Your client should contact the State officials in the State in which the non-profit organization is providing the transportation to determine if there are any State requirements that pertain to the transportation of the school children. You also ask whether such vehicles would be commercial motor vehicles, and whether the drivers would be considered drivers-for-hire. Programs regulating commercial motor vehicles and commercial driver licensing are administered by the U.S. Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). You can contact FMCSAs Chief Counsels office by calling (202) 493-0349. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff by mail or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA d.7/24/09 [1] The statute defined school bus as a vehicle that is designed to carry 11 or more persons and which is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary students to or from school or related events (49 U.S.C. 30125). [2] Bus is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 of our regulations as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. |
2009 |
ID: 86-1.31OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/11/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Tony T.Y. Tu -- Fonnex Industrial Corp. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. Tony T.Y. Tu Fonnex Industrial Corp. P.O. Box 68-857 Taipei, TAIWAN
This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 1985, to this agency asking questions regarding test procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No, 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.
Your questions indicate that you are under the impression that test samples must be submitted to this agency for testing. This is not correct; no testing or approval by this agency is required before a manufacturer of replacement lighting equipment may offer its product for sale in the United States.
Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, such a manufacturer is required by law to produce replacement lighting equipment that is designed to comply to the requirements of Standard No. 108, and to certify that the equipment does, in fact, meet the standard. It is the manufacturer's decision as to how many samples must be tested, whether they are prototype or production items, and so on, in order to assure himself that the item does meet Standard No. 108, before certifying that it does comply. Certification may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the item itself, or a statement of compliance on a label or tag affixed to the item itself, or to the container in which it is shipped.
As a general rule, under section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et. seq.), all items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard takes effect must conform to such standard in order to be imported into the United States. The regulation governing the importation of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment is Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 12.80 (19 CFR 12.80).
You should also note that under 49 CFR 566, you are required to submit certain identifying information and a description of your product to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Further, under section 151 et seq. of the Act, you are responsible for recall and remedy, at your expense, for any safety related defects in your product or noncompliances with Standard No. 108. Prior to offering motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States, a foreign manufacturer is required to register an "Agent-for-Service" of process as set forth in 49 CFR 551.45 as well as furnishing the information required by 19 CPR 566 for covered items of equipment.
You are advised to carefully examine the Act and FMVSS as well as other regulations listed below to insure that you fully understand the extent of the responsibilities you incur upon the manufacture/importation of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which there is an applicable FMVSS.
Enclosed for your information and guidance is a copy of the following:
1. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.)
2. 49 CFR 551, "Procedural Rules"
3. 49 CFR 556
4. 19 CFR 12.80, "Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment"
5. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment
We also recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20036. It is a private organization that provides information regarding the requirements of the various States. I hope that this answers your questions.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
October 18, 1985
U .S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590, U.S.A.
Attn. Whom who concern
Dear Sir:
We are an Auto Lamps manufacturer in Taiwan, our products include Front Lamps, Side Lamps and Rear Lamps, etc.. We hope that our products could pass the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard & Regulation test and sold to the market of your country. So, please offer us your instructions what are the procedure we have to take, such as:
1. Who is in charge of the testing to whom we have to contact. (Administration , Name and Address)
2. How many samples in each items we have to send for testing. 3. The other special instruction which are important to us if we want our products to be passed the testing.
We wish that our inquiry will not bring you too much trouble. Your earlier reply will be highly appreciated. Best regards. Yours sincerely,
Tony T. Y. Tu FONNEX INDUSTRIAL CORP. T/nc |
|
ID: 86-5.36OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 10/24/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mrs. Bettie Lou Simcox TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mrs. Bettie Lou Simcox 10 Martin Place Little Falls, NJ 07424-1709
Dear Mrs. Simcox:
This is in reply to your letter of August 28, 1986, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding the acceptability of an aftermarket stop lamp intended for installation on motorcycles. The product is a stop lamp that, when the brake is applied, pulses before going into a steady-burning mode. The New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles has informed you that stop lamps are required by Federal law to be steady-burning. A representative of this agency has told you that such lamp would be acceptable as a supplementary stop lamp, but not as a replacement lamp. You are writing us for confirmation of the Federal requirement.
Your understanding is essentially correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires most vehicle lamps, including stop lamps, to be steady-burning in use, though signal lamps such as turn signals and hazard warning signals must flash. Further, the replacement of an original equipment steady-burning stop lamp with one that flashes before becoming steady-burning would be considered a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, though not if performed by the owner of the vehicle. As for the acceptability of the device as a supplementary stop lamp, Standard No. 108 really does not contemplate a supplementary stop lamp for motorcycles. Although requiring at least ? stop lamp, the standard allows two provided that they "are symmetrically disposed around the vertical centerline." We interpret this a s meaning that a second stop lamp must be identical in all respects to the first one, for surely a confusing situation would result if stop lamps on either side of the vertical centerline were unequal in size or in method of operation. However, the flashing/steady burning stop lamp mounted the vertical centerline would be permissible as an addition to motorcycle stop lamp systems consisting of two lamps mounted on either side of the vertical centerline. Alternatively, if you wished to add two pulsing stoplamps mounted symmetrically around the vertical centerline in addition to the steady-burning original equipment stoplamp, that also would be permissible. We appreciate your interest in motorcycle safety, and your taking the time to write us of your concerns.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
BETTIE LOU SIMCOX 10 Martin Place Little Falls, N.J. 07424-1709
August 28, 1986
Mr. Taylor Vinson N.H.T.S.A. - 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590
Dear Mr. Vinson,
As an advocate of motorcycling I am writing your office for assistance. My husband and I are members a AMA and GWRRA. Our Chapter of GWRRA is based in Northern, New Jersey.
A new product has appeared on the market and before purchasing same I wanted to check the legality of it. It is a stop light which pulsates then turns to a continuous-on light when the brakes are applied. I called many people but no one could give me any information on the laws governing this particular type of lighting so I called New Jersey division of Motor Vehicles. After speaking to different departments, as no one knew the answer, I finally reached the Engineering Department. The gentleman there stated such product would not be legal as only signal lights and hazard lights were approved to pulsate. He further informed me that this was not a State Regulation but a Federal Statute and that the governing department is D.O.T. I then called washington, D.C. Again, I talked to many different departments before finally reaching the Crash Avoidance Department. The information received from them is ? lighting device such as I described would be legal IF used as ADDITIONAL light source not as a REPLACEMENT stop light. Then the brake light from the factory was intact and operating as continuous-on light, then this additional light could be used.
Naturally we want to operate our vehicles legally, but we also want to operate safely. So upon recommendation, I am writing to your office for legal confirmation of this Statue in writing. Any device which will call attention to our motorcycles to avoid an accident is necessary as far as we are concerned. Too many people think all motorcyclists as "Hell's Angels" type when in fact they represent a very small percentage of cycling entourage. Most of our Chapter members are in the over 40 age bracket. We purchase expensive motorcycles and"dress" them will. Too we wreak because someone says "Oh I didn't know you were going ? I didn't see your lights" and rear-ends us.
I thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to read my letter. Any information you may be able to supply will be greatly appreciated by many.
Awaiting your reply I remain,
Sincerely yours,
Bettie Lou Simcox |
|
ID: nht91-4.32OpenDATE: June 28, 1991 FROM: Dale R. Thompson -- Executive Director, Anderson County Board for the Mentally Retarded and Developmentally Disabled TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dale R. Thompson (A38; Part 571.3) TEXT: Per our recent phone conversation, I am contacting your office requesting FHTSA rulings on several transportation issues confronting my agency and the public school districts of Anderson County. These issues involve the transportation of handicapped children ages 3 and 4 that are officially classified as public school children under recent implementation of Public Law 99-457. Public Law 99-457 requires that public schools provide educational and related services. (including transportation) to eligible handicapped children. Prior to the implementation of this law, our agency has transported this population to and from our center based program for developmental and custodial care. We were not subject to FEDERAL or state PUBLIC SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION guidelines as these children were not, prior to implementation of Public Law 99-457, classified as public school children. As the fiscal demands of Public Law 99-457 are forcing a combined effort between my agency and the local public schools, we are evaluating the possibility of utilizing my agency's transportation vehicles to provide total or partial transportation assistance as a collaborative effort. However, prior to making such decisions all agencies and Boards involved feel a federal and state analysis for legal compliance are needed. I would appreciate your guidance or rulings on the following: (Note: The vehicles for proposed use are 15 passenger Dodge/ Chevy/Ford/GMC body types). 1. The vehicles our agency has previously purchased to transport this population prior to their public school age classification does not meet FMVSS/FHTSA standards as a "school bus". As we are proposing to utilize these vehicles to transport this population TO and FROM a public school facility for both education and custodial care, are our vehicles subject to any current, or proposed FHTSA requirements? Note 1. Each child will receive approximately 2 hours of educational services from the school system and 3-4 hours of custodial care per day at the same location. 2. Would these vehicles be subject to FHTSA/FMVSS requirements if they were only used to transport this population FROM the educational/ custodial location each afternoon (From school to home only). Note 2. After mid-morning public school services are completed, our agency will be providing afternoon custodial care prior to the return trip home. 3. What safety features are required of a "bus" in order to comply with FHTSA/FMVSS standards. As I mentioned to you over the phone, I would appreciate as prompt a response as possible gives the onset of a new school year.
If you need additional information or clarification to assist your determination process, let me know. |
|
ID: 1983-3.7OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/15/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Bandag Inc. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Frank B. Hill, Esq. Patent and Trademark Counsel Bandag, Inc. Bandag Center Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Dear Mr. Hill:
This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking about marking requirements applicable to truck tires retreaded for non-highway use. You stated in your letter that the retreaded tires would be mounted only on vehicles used in shipyard areas to move cargo around. I will answer the three questions you raised in the order you presented them.
1. Is it required that a retreader put its DOT identification mark of truck tires when they are retreaded for non-highway use? It is not possible to give a simple yes or no answer to this question. 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, sets forth certain marking requirements which must be met by manufacturers and retreaders of tires, including the requirement in section 574.5 that a DOT identification mark be molded on all new and retreaded tires. However, section 574.1 specifies that the requirements of Part 574 apply only to new and retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles. Hence, the question which must be answered to determine if a retreaded is required to put its DOT identification mark on a retreaded tire is whether the tire is for use on motor vehicles.
"Motor vehicle" is defined at 15 U.S.C. 7391(5) as "any 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." If these retreaded tires are for use on forklifts or other types of mobile construction equipment intended and sold primarily for off-road use, the retreader would not be required to mold a DOT identification mark on the tires, because the tires would not be for use on motor vehicles. This is true even if these types of vehicles are incidentally used for highway travel from one job site to another.
If, on the other hand, the vehicles on which the retreaded tires are mounted are conventional on-road trucks simply being used in a shipyard, the retreaders would be required to comply with the requirements of Part 574, because the tires are for use on motor vehicles. The determination of whether the retreaded tires are for use on motor vehicles must be made initially by the retreader, but it would be subject to review by this agency.
2. If a DOT identification mark is not required, is there any other notice that is required on the retreaded trucks tires, retreaded for non-highway use?
If the retreaded truck tires are not subject to the Part 574 marking requirements, because they are not for use on motor vehicles, there are no other marking requirements applicable to retreaded truck tires.
3. If no notice is required and the DOT identification mark is not required, would it be permissible to place a disclaimer notice such as "Not Retreaded for Highway Use" on the retreaded truck tire? This sort of notice would be permitted, and would be a useful disclosure for the retreader and the user of the tire, to show the intended use of the tire. Such a notice would not affect the retreader's duty to determine whether the tire was retreaded for use on motor vehicles, and mold its DOT identification mark on the sidewall of the tire if it were for use on motor vehicles. Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
August 4, 1983 FBH:83-583
Mr. Steve Kratzke National Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin. Legal Department Room 5219 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590
Dear Mr. Kratzke:
I would appreciate receiving an opinion from you on the requirements that a retreader would have in reference to retreading truck tires for non-highway use. Specifically, the application of retreaded truck tires being used in shipyards to move cargo in the shipyard area only.
I have three specific questions:
1. Is it required that a retreader put their DOT identification mark on truck tires when they are retreaded for non-highway use? 2. If a DOT identification mark is not required, is there any other notice that is required on the retreaded truck tires, retreaded for non-highway use?
3. If no notice is required and the DOT identification mark is not required, would it be permissible to place a disclaimer notice such as "Not Retreaded for Highway Use" on the retreaded truck tire? As soon as you have had an opportunity to review this matter, I would appreciate receiving your opinion.
Very truly yours,
Frank B. Hill Patent and Trademark Counsel
FBH:jl |
|
ID: nht88-3.56OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/23/88 FROM: DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO: RUTH SKLUZACEEK -- IOWA DIRECTOR OF VEHICLE REGISTRATION OFFICE TITLE: THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 (@ 321.424) OF THE CODE OF IOWA ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/05/89 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO FRED GRANDY, REDBOOK A33 (3); STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/09/89 FROM FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 05/05/89 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO ROBER T A. DETERMAN, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH; LETTER DATED 10/10/88 FROM JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA DOT TO DANIEL F. WIECHMANN, REF NO 911.2; LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARR Y LYNN SPEICH FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA TEXT: Dear Ms. Skluzaceek: Please be advised I represent the above named Defendant, who was charged with the violation of Section 321.424 of the Code of Iowa, which is Sale of Lights-Approval, which basically states that no person shall have for sale, sell or offer sale for use upon or as a part of the equipment of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer, or use upon any such vehicle any headlight, auxiliary or fog lamp, rear lamp, signal lamp, or reflector, which reflector is required hereunder, or parts of any of the forego ing which tend to change the original design or performance, unless of a type which has been submitted to the director and approved by the director. I also refer to you Section 329.428 of The Code of Iowa which authorizes the director to approve or disapprove lighting devices and to issue and enforce rules establishing standards and specifications for the approval of such lighting devices, etc. The bottom line herein is the above named Defendant had headlight covers such as described in the information I have enclosed, which is pages 210 and 211 from an auto parts catalog. I am wondering as to whether or not these headlights or covers are approved by the State of Iowa, and if so, would you please be so kind as to set forth the fact these headlight covers are an approved device. If they are not approved, please kindly s o state. If you are looking for further information concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. As I have stated, for your assistance, I am enclosing pages 210 and 211 from an auto parts catalog, as well as a copy of the ticket issued to the young man. For your information, the Hearing is set on this ticket for the 29th day of September, 1988, at 1:00 P.M. I look forward to your response. Thank you very much. Yours very truly, ENCLOSURES |
|
ID: BressantEPAltrOpen
Mr. Kerrin Bressant Dear Mr. Bressant: This is in reply to your fax to Stephen R. Kratzke, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards, providing descriptions of three small vehicles--the Kawasaki Mule 520, the Polaris Ranger 4 x 4, and the Cushman White Truck 611. You asked whether these vehicles meet our definition of a "low-speed vehicle" even though they were designed or are advertised as "off-road" only use vehicles, and whether a vehicle can be considered both an off-road vehicle and a low-speed vehicle at the same time. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes our agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA has no authority to approve or certify any commercial product. Instead, Congress established a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The term "motor vehicle" is defined by statute as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . ." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). Accordingly, only vehicles that are operated on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of their primary uses, are considered to be motor vehicles, and vehicles which are solely used "off-road" are excluded. For purposes of our regulations, "low-speed vehicles" are one of several categories of motor vehicles. The term "low-speed vehicle" is defined as "a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed attainable in 1.6 [kilometers] (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface." 49 CFR 571.3(b) (emphasis added). Other categories of motor vehicles include passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers. As to your question of whether a vehicle can be considered both an off-road vehicle and a low-speed vehicle at the same time, I note that because low-speed vehicles are a type of motor vehicle, vehicles that are excluded from the definition of motor vehicle because they are solely used "off-road" are not considered to be low-speed vehicles under our regulations. Some vehicles can, of course, be used for either on-road use or off-road use. As we have explained in a number of interpretation letters, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. Moreover, if a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated. In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:
I will now turn to the specific vehicles about which you inquire, the Kawasaki Mule 520, the Polaris Ranger 4 x 4, and the Cushman White Truck 611. Because the Safety Act establishes a self-certification system, it is the manufacturer of each of these vehicles, and not this agency, that has the obligation to determine whether these products are motor vehicles. The manufacturers of each of these vehicles advertise them for off-road use and do not consider them to be motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued interpretation letters addressing an earlier design of the Polaris Ranger and addressing vehicles which are similar to the other vehicles. I am enclosing copies of several of these letters for your information (addressed to Mr. Undlin, dated 8/6/99, Mr. Sanford, dated 1/25/99, Mr. Garcia, dated 1/17/95, and Mr. Kato, dated 10/13/88). Finally, I would like to note that our definition of "low-speed vehicle" specifically excludes trucks. The vehicles you asked about all have cargo beds. If a manufacturer decided to produce vehicles similar to these for on-road use, they would not be low-speed vehicles under our regulations (regardless of their speed capability); they would be trucks. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Enclosures |
2002 |
ID: 06-007875--6 May 09 rewrite--rsyOpenJeff Ronning, PE Senior Consultant Rocky Mountain Institute 1739 Snowmass Creek Road Snowmass, CO 81654-9199 Dear Mr. Ronning: This responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of November 27, 2006. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your letter, you asked for our interpretation of 49 CFR Part 538 as it would apply to a plug-in electric hybrid design for a postal delivery vehicle. You ask for confirmation that your basic vehicle design will qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle so that the United States Postal Service (USPS) can be assured [you] are on the right course. You explained that if the vehicle is fully charged, it would be able to operate completely on electricity for most carriers where the average carrier route is only 15 miles, and that the gasoline engine would be used only for rare long-range travel and peripherals such as heating and all-wheel drive function. On January 9, 2007, you further asked by email whether a flex-fuel engine (i.e., one able to use either petroleum-based gasoline or ethanol E85 fuel) instead of a plain gas engine for the same hybrid vehicle would qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle under Part 538. Based on the information that you provided, either design would qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle for purposes of the dual-fuel CAFE incentive. 49 CFR Part 538, Manufacturing Incentives for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, is likely not directly relevant to the vehicle you described. Part 538 has three basic purposes. First, it establishes minimum driving range criteria to aid in identifying passenger automobiles that qualify as dual-fueled automobiles. Second, it establishes gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels other than natural gas. And finally, it extends the dual-fuel incentive program through model year 2008. The minimum driving range criteria contained in 538.5 and 538.6 apply only to passenger automobiles. In the context of the CAFE program, passenger automobiles are defined as any automobile (other than an automobile capable of off-highway operation) manufactured primarily for use in the transportation of not more than 10 individuals.[1] Although NHTSA leaves it to automobile manufacturers to classify their vehicles in the first instance for CAFE purposes, we would likely consider a postal delivery vehicle to be a non-passenger automobile (commonly referred to as a light truck), since it is manufactured primarily for carrying cargo, and not for transporting passengers. Thus, the minimum driving range criteria of Part 538 would likely not apply to your vehicle.[2] The other two aspects of Part 538, gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels other than natural gas, and the extension of the incentive program through MY 2008, also would not apply to your vehicle. Since you described your vehicle as a plug-in hybrid, gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels would be irrelevant. Further, Part 538s extension of the incentive program has been superseded by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, which extended the program by statute through model year 2018.[3] Thus, Part 538 would likely not apply to your vehicle. However, your vehicle may still qualify for the dual-fuel incentive under 49 U.S.C. 32905(b), whether or not 49 CFR Part 538 applies to it. A dual fueled automobile is defined (in relevant part) in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(8) as an automobile that: (A) is capable of operating on alternative fuel and on gasoline or diesel fuel; [and] (B) provides equal or superior energy efficiency, as calculated for the applicable model year during fuel economy testing for the United States Government, when operating on alternative fuel as when operating on gasoline or diesel fuel. Alternative fuel, in turn, is defined at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(1) as including: (J) electricity (including electricity from solar energy); and (K) any other fuel the Secretary of Transportation prescribes by regulation that is not substantially petroleum and that would yield substantial energy security and environmental benefits. Based on this statutory language, NHTSA interprets electricity as an alternative fuel only if it is not substantially petroleum. The electricity on which the alternative fuel vehicle operates must come from some source other than petroleum-based gasoline pumped into the vehicle; for example, from the grid, as in a plug-in hybrid, or from solar energy as the statute mentions.[4] Thus, we would likely consider a plug-in hybrid like your proposed design, whether it contained a gasoline engine or an engine that could also run on E85, to be a dual fueled automobile under 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(8). If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:538 d.7/24/09 [1] 49 CFR 523.4, see also 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(18). [2] Nevertheless, we note that it is possible that, in the course of examining your vehicle, NHTSA could conclude that in actuality it would be appropriately classified as a passenger automobile. In that situation, in order to qualify for the dual fuel incentive, your vehicle would be required to conform with Part 538 and 49 U.S.C. 32901(c), which specify that the vehicle must drive a nominal distance of 7.5 miles on its stored capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA urban test cycle and 10.2 miles when operated on the EPA highway test cycle. [3] Pub. L. 110-140, Sec. 109 (Dec. 19, 2007). [4] In contrast, in a regular hybrid electric vehicle, any electricity used to run the vehicle comes from stored regenerative braking force, which is derived from the operation of the gasoline engine. |
2009 |
ID: Copy of 06-007875--6 May 09 rewrite--rsyOpenJeff Ronning, PE Senior Consultant Rocky Mountain Institute 1739 Snowmass Creek Road Snowmass, CO 81654-9199 Dear Mr. Ronning: This responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of November 27, 2006. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your letter, you asked for our interpretation of 49 CFR Part 538 as it would apply to a plug-in electric hybrid design for a postal delivery vehicle. You ask for confirmation that your basic vehicle design will qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle so that the United States Postal Service (USPS) can be assured [you] are on the right course. You explained that if the vehicle is fully charged, it would be able to operate completely on electricity for most carriers where the average carrier route is only 15 miles, and that the gasoline engine would be used only for rare long-range travel and peripherals such as heating and all-wheel drive function. On January 9, 2007, you further asked by email whether a flex-fuel engine (i.e., one able to use either petroleum-based gasoline or ethanol E85 fuel) instead of a plain gas engine for the same hybrid vehicle would qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle under Part 538. Based on the information that you provided, either design would qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle for purposes of the dual-fuel CAFE incentive. 49 CFR Part 538, Manufacturing Incentives for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, is likely not directly relevant to the vehicle you described. Part 538 has three basic purposes. First, it establishes minimum driving range criteria to aid in identifying passenger automobiles that qualify as dual-fueled automobiles. Second, it establishes gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels other than natural gas. And finally, it extends the dual-fuel incentive program through model year 2008. The minimum driving range criteria contained in 538.5 and 538.6 apply only to passenger automobiles. In the context of the CAFE program, passenger automobiles are defined as any automobile (other than an automobile capable of off-highway operation) manufactured primarily for use in the transportation of not more than 10 individuals.[1] Although NHTSA leaves it to automobile manufacturers to classify their vehicles in the first instance for CAFE purposes, we would likely consider a postal delivery vehicle to be a non-passenger automobile (commonly referred to as a light truck), since it is manufactured primarily for carrying cargo, and not for transporting passengers. Thus, the minimum driving range criteria of Part 538 would likely not apply to your vehicle.[2] The other two aspects of Part 538, gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels other than natural gas, and the extension of the incentive program through MY 2008, also would not apply to your vehicle. Since you described your vehicle as a plug-in hybrid, gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels would be irrelevant. Further, Part 538s extension of the incentive program has been superseded by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, which extended the program by statute through model year 2018.[3] Thus, Part 538 would likely not apply to your vehicle. However, your vehicle may still qualify for the dual-fuel incentive under 49 U.S.C. 32905(b), whether or not 49 CFR Part 538 applies to it. A dual fueled automobile is defined (in relevant part) in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(8) as an automobile that: (A) is capable of operating on alternative fuel and on gasoline or diesel fuel; [and] (B) provides equal or superior energy efficiency, as calculated for the applicable model year during fuel economy testing for the United States Government, when operating on alternative fuel as when operating on gasoline or diesel fuel. Alternative fuel, in turn, is defined at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(1) as including: (J) electricity (including electricity from solar energy); and (K) any other fuel the Secretary of Transportation prescribes by regulation that is not substantially petroleum and that would yield substantial energy security and environmental benefits. Based on this statutory language, NHTSA interprets electricity as an alternative fuel only if it is not substantially petroleum. The electricity on which the alternative fuel vehicle operates must come from some source other than petroleum-based gasoline pumped into the vehicle; for example, from the grid, as in a plug-in hybrid, or from solar energy as the statute mentions.[4] Thus, we would likely consider a plug-in hybrid like your proposed design, whether it contained a gasoline engine or an engine that could also run on E85, to be a dual fueled automobile under 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(8). If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:538 d.7/24/09 [1] 49 CFR 523.4, see also 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(18). [2] Nevertheless, we note that it is possible that, in the course of examining your vehicle, NHTSA could conclude that in actuality it would be appropriately classified as a passenger automobile. In that situation, in order to qualify for the dual fuel incentive, your vehicle would be required to conform with Part 538 and 49 U.S.C. 32901(c), which specify that the vehicle must drive a nominal distance of 7.5 miles on its stored capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA urban test cycle and 10.2 miles when operated on the EPA highway test cycle. [3] Pub. L. 110-140, Sec. 109 (Dec. 19, 2007). [4] In contrast, in a regular hybrid electric vehicle, any electricity used to run the vehicle comes from stored regenerative braking force, which is derived from the operation of the gasoline engine. |
2009 |
ID: nht95-2.62OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: May 1, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Robert Closson -- Spartan Motors, Inc. TITLE: NONE TEXT: Dear Mr. Closson: On February 9, 1995, the Chief Counsel, Philip Recht, wrote you asking that you furnish additional information with respect to your application for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 105 and 301. A copy of this letter is attach ed for your reference. Mr. Recht asked you to provide this information within 30 days of your receipt of his letter. As of today, we have not heard further from you. Please understand that we cannot delay indefinitely a decision upon your application. If we have not heard fr om you by May 25, we shall proceed to a decision without the benefit of your comments on issues of safety that concern us. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). |
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.