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: nht89-1.45OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/20/89 FROM: M. IWASE -- TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. KOITO MFG. CO., LTD. TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO M. IWASE; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108 TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones, Koito would like to confirm the following prescription of license plate lamp in Table II and IV of FMVSS No. 108. TABLE II - LOCATION OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT Location on Height above Item Multipurpose passenger Trailers road surface vehicles, trucks, and busses measuredLicense At rear license plate, to At rear license plate, to No plate illuminate the plate from the illuminate the plate from requirement lamp top or sides. the top or sides. TABLE IV - LOCATION OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT Location on Height above Item Passenger cars, multipurpose Motorcycles road surface passenger vehicles, measuredLicense At rear license plate, to At rear license plate No plate illuminate the plate from the requirementlamp top or sides. We interpret that the license plate lamp is not permitted to illuminate the plate from the bottom (except Motorcycle). We would greatly appreciate if you would kindly and promptly give us your confirmation as to whether the illumination from the bottom be permissible. Sincerely yours, |
|
ID: 22203.ztvOpen Mr. Thomas V. Wolcott Dear Mr. Wolcott: This is in reply to your letter of September 26, 2000, requesting an interpretation concerning a motorcycle braking configuration. You state that the master cylinder in the system "would be actuated hydraulically using the standard handlebar mounted lever." You further describe the system in some detail and inform us that your vehicle will comply with "all regulations regarding volume and wording on the cap." The intent of the design is "to be able to remote mount the master cylinder unit to a more protected and less visible area of the motorcycle." You have not been able to find a regulation or standard that would not allow this configuration. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are intended to establish performance requirements, leaving the design of systems to the manufacturer. There is nothing in the Federal motorcycle braking standard (FMVSS No. 122), controls and displays standard (FMVSS No. 123) or any other FMVSS or regulation that would prohibit the motorcycle brake system configuration described in your letter. Sincerely, ref:122 |
2000 |
ID: nht94-4.44OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 4, 1994 FROM: Brigitte Neifer -- Safety Standards/Certifications, Sekurit Saint-Gobain Deutschland TO: Dan Colhen -- Safety Compliance, NHTSA TITLE: 1) Docket 89-15; 2) AAMVA activities ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/17/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO BRIGITTE NEIFER (A43; STD. 205) TEXT: 1) [Illegible Words] Please inform me if NHTSA is planning further activity on this docket. I have not heard of further activities - published in the FR - since July 1992. 2) AAMVA: I have been informed that AAMVA have given up involvement in the Safety Equipment Compliance Program, which has obviously lost importance, due to the increasing preemption of state regulations by the federal government. I therefore intend to limit our a ctivities to having our products tested by ANSI standard in independent laboratories such as ETL in Cortland or other European labs. I understand that the 5-year rhythm of renewal was an AAMVA procedure and not an official requirement. Am I right? I nevertheless intend to have our products regularly tested by independent laboratories and think DOT inspectors in USA will accept (cars equipped with) our glazings when accompanied only with a test report. Is this correct? I would appreciate any comment, information, advice and warning of NHTSA concerning my evaluation of the situation. I know rather little about US legal requirements of showing compliance of production with ANSI Z26.1 apart from test reports. |
|
ID: nht72-1.25OpenDATE: 05/26/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Livingston's Tire Shop TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1972, requesting a letter from NHTSA to the effect that tire manufacturers are free to sell you new repairable tires which you plan to repair and sell. We have assumed that the manufacturers of the tires do not believe that they conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. "New Pneumatic Tires," and that they have not certified conformance to the standard, as this is apparently the reason for their reluctance to sell you these tires. Paragraph S6. of Standard No. 109 provides, among other things, that passenger car tires that are not certified, defined as "reclassified tires," must bear a label (specified in the standard) stating that they are not to be sold for use on passenger cars. If you wish to purchase reclassified tires, repair them, and resell them for passenger car use, you must ensure that they conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 109 (paragraphs S1. through S5.), and relabel and certify them in accordance with paragraph S4.3. You should be aware that the NHTSA has proposed, in a notice dated November 27, 1971 (36 F.R. 22688, copy enclosed) to prohibit the sale for any purpose of reclassified tires. |
|
ID: 08_002292-dfOpen
Mr. Greg Broemeling Idaho Tote Dolly, Inc. 27980 North Juliaetta Grd. Juliaetta, ID 83535 Dear Mr. Broemeling: This responds to your email inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the classification of your product, The Idaho Tote, under NHTSA regulations. Your email, which you originally sent to Mr. David Coleman of NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, was referred to my office for reply. We have also received a letter from U.S. Senator Michael D. Crapo on your behalf concerning The Idaho Tote, to which we are responding separately. By way of background, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes NHTSA to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which require minimum levels of safety performance. In your email communication to NHTSA, you indicated that you disagree with a recent Idaho Transportation Department classification of The Idaho Tote as a trailer and asked for our opinion on the matter. Keep in mind that State and Federal definitions of types of motor vehicles are relevant for different purposes. State law regulates, among other things, titling, licensing, and other aspects of motor vehicle use requirements. NHTSAs regulations apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and specify, among other things, the requirements of this agency that new vehicles must meet according to the vehicle type. NHTSA does not interpret the laws of the individual States, such as Idahos definitions of motor vehicle type. Under NHTSAs regulations, based on the information supplied to this agency and for the reasons explained below, The Idaho Tote would be considered a trailer. The term motor vehicle is defined in the controlling statute (49 U.S.C. 30102) as a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways. For purposes of applying the FMVSS, NHTSA defines vehicle types as set forth in 49 CFR 571.3. Trailer, which is one of those vehicle types, is defined in the agencys regulations at 49 CFR 571.3(b) as a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. In your letter to Senator Crapo, you described The Idaho Tote as an external toy hauler with its own wheels and axle, which attaches to the towing vehicle by two main frame rails that are bolted to an attachment which is, in turn, welded to the frame of a truck or other towing vehicle. You stated that because The Idaho Tote is able to articulate up and down on the bolts, it eliminates any stress to the frame from road irregularities. You further stated that because it is attached to the towing vehicle by means of the two rails, the tote cannot swerve, sway, or jackknife, as can a trailer that is attached to a towing vehicle at a single pivot point. Under NHTSAs regulations (49 CFR 571.3(b)), a unit is a trailer if it is a motor vehicle (i.e., a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways) and is designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. As is evident from our definition of trailer, the manner in which a unit is attached to a towing vehicle has no bearing on the units classification as a trailer for the purpose of NHTSAs regulations. You described The Idaho Tote as having been developed as an external toy hauler. You also furnished photographs of the tote, which has a flat bed and side rails, carrying what appears to be a small off-road vehicle. Since your product meets the statutory definition of a motor vehicle and is designed for carrying property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle, we would consider The Idaho Tote to be a trailer under NHTSAs regulations.[1] An informational brochure for new trailer manufacturers is posted on our website at www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/maninfo. This brochure identifies and describes the FMVSS that apply to trailers, and certain procedural requirements that a motor vehicle manufacturer must meet under NHTSAs regulations. Those requirements include the need to obtain from the Society of Automotive Engineers a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) to be incorporated into the vehicle identification numbers (VINs) that a manufacturer must assign to motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. A manufacturer must also submit VIN deciphering information to NHTSA at least 60 days before offering for sale a motor vehicle with the manufacturers VIN, as required by NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements.[2] A manufacturer must also submit to NHTSA identifying information on itself and the vehicles that it manufactures, as required under NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Finally, a manufacturer must permanently affix to each motor vehicle it manufactures for sale in the United States a label that, among other things, identifies the manufacturer and the vehicles date of manufacture, and states that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS in effect on that date. This requirement is reflected in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Finally, you noted in the letter you sent to Senator Crapo that you believed that Mr. Coleman of NHTSA, with whom you also communicated by telephone about your product, supported your views and recommended that you plead your case to the Idaho State Senate. In a follow-up conversation with NHTSAs Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Coleman recalled expressing a view that The Idaho Tote would be a trailer under NHTSAs regulations, and that he had only suggested that you discuss matters relating to licensing, titling, and registration requirements with state administrators. We regret any confusion or inconvenience the conversation may have caused. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d.9/25/08 [1] You indicated in your letter to Senator Crapo that a July 25, 1995 letter from NHTSA to David Lowell supported a determination that your product was not a trailer. The letter does not support such a view. The letter addressed the issue of whether a vehicle was a truck or truck tractor under 49 CFR 571.3(b). Under 49 CFR 571.3(b), both trucks and truck tractors are defined as vehicles with motive power, among other characteristics. The Idaho Tote does not have its own engine and is not a truck or truck tractor under NHTSA regulations. [2] NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register of April 30, 2008, (73 FR 23367; NHTSA Docket 2008-0022), corrected 73 FR 28370, that made certain changes to the VIN regulation, effective October 27, 2008. A copy of these final rule documents is enclosed. |
2008 |
ID: 19376-1.pjaOpenThe Honorable Tim Holden Re: Mr. Gary Issod Dear Representative Holden: This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Gary Issod of Reading, regarding Federal regulations on window tinting and how they relate to the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the Federal requirements for window tinting. Mr. Issod objects to a Pennsylvania law requiring automobile windows to transmit at least 70 percent of the incident light. Mr. Issod believes that the State law is based on an erroneous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, which regulates automotive glazing materials (windows). As explained below, Pennsylvania correctly interprets Standard No. 205, and we have determined that the State law is not preempted. By way of background, NHTSA has the authority, under 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this statute, we issued Safety Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for vehicle glazing. The standard includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Although the standard does not apply to vehicles once the vehicle has been sold to a consumer, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of our statute prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Therefore, the act of tinting any car window to transmittance levels darker than 70 percent is a violation of section 30122(b), if it is performed by one of the regulated businesses listed above. We do not regulate or limit owners tinting their vehicle windows, although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than that allowed by Standard No. 205 for new vehicles. Moreover, NHTSA does not regulate the use of vehicles. Instead, the operation or use of vehicles is under the jurisdiction of the States. States have the authority to regulate how vehicles are operated or used, as long as the State law is not preempted by Federal law. State operational restrictions addressing an aspect of performance regulated by the Federal standard would be preempted by Federal law only to the extent that they prohibit the use of vehicles that comply with Federal regulations. Examining Pennsylvania's law, as outlined in the letter you forwarded from Assistant Counsel Sanders, we find that the Pennsylvania law is not preempted by NHTSA's regulations. Pennsylvania's law does not prohibit the use of vehicles with windows allowing 70 percent light transmittance. It requires the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard. There appears to be no conflict between the State and Federal glazing standards, with regard to the light transmittance issue. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, NHTSA # ES99010044, DOT # 984688 ref: FMVSS 205 Re: Mr. Gary Issod Dear Representative Holden: This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Gary Issod of Reading, regarding Federal regulations on window tinting and how they relate to the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the Federal requirements for window tinting. Mr. Issod objects to a Pennsylvania law requiring automobile windows to transmit at least 70 percent of the incident light. Mr. Issod believes that the State law is based on an erroneous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, which regulates automotive glazing materials (windows). As explained below, Pennsylvania correctly interprets Standard No. 205, and we have determined that the State law is not preempted. By way of background, NHTSA has the authority, under 49 USC 30111, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We issued Safety Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for vehicle glazing. The standard includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Although the standard does not apply to vehicles once the vehicle has been sold to a consumer, section 30122(b) of our statute prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Therefore, the act of tinting any car window to transmittance levels darker than 70 percent is a violation of 30122(b), if it is performed by one of the regulated businesses listed above. NHTSA's regulations do not apply to the use of vehicles by their owners. We do not regulate or limit owners tinting their vehicle windows, although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than that allowed by Standard No. 205 for new vehicles. Instead, the operation or use of vehicles is under the jurisdiction of the States. States have the authority to regulate how vehicles are operated or used, as long as the State law is not preempted by Federal law. Preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is addressed by section 30103(b)(1) of our statute, which states, in pertinent part: "[w]hen a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect . . . a State . . . may prescribe . . . a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [Federal standard]." State laws would be preempted by Federal law to the extent that they regulate the same aspect of performance in a different way, or permit an action that is prohibited by the Federal regulations (such as permitting the sale of noncomplying vehicles, not allowing the sale of complying vehicles, or permitting businesses to tint windows darker than 70 percent transmittance). As long as the State law restricts itself to regulating the operation or use (as opposed to the sale or modification) of vehicles, it would not be preempted by Federal law. Examining Pennsylvania's law, as outlined in the letter you forwarded from Assistant Counsel Sanders, we find that the Pennsylvania law is not preempted by NHTSA's regulations. Pennsylvania's law does not permit businesses to tint vehicle windows darker than 70 percent light transmittance. It requires maintenance of the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard. There appears to be no conflict between the State and Federal glazing standards, with regard to the light transmittance issue. Further, the relevant State provision, 75 Pa. C.S. 4524(e)(1), states "[n]o person shall drive any motor vehicle . . ." (emphasis added). No part of the law quoted by Mr. Sanders appears to regulate anything beyond the operation of vehicles or the criteria for inspection. It does not restrict the operation of vehicles that are manufactured in compliance with Federal regulations that concern the same aspect of performance addressed by the State standard. Finally, Pennsylvania's law does not permit businesses to tint vehicle windows darker than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, it requires maintenance of the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: 15504.drnOpenMr. Donald W. Vierimaa Dear Mr. Vierimaa: This responds to your association's request that this office review the most recent revisions of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's (TTMA) Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number" and Recommended Practice Number 53, "U. S. Trailer Certification Label." We have reviewed both draft documents as time and resources would allow and offer the following comments. Please note, however, that these comments do not constitute any sort of NHTSA approval or endorsement of the TTMA's Recommended Practices. TTMA is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the documents. In general, the TTMA Recommended Practice No. 56 appears to be correct about NHTSA's vehicle identification number requirements as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. In general, Recommended Practice No. 53 appears to be correct about NHTSA's labeling requirements in 49 CFR Part 567 Certification and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. (49 CFR 571.120). However, in several instances, the Recommended Practices go beyond what is required by NHTSA's regulations to recommend one particular means be used to meet the Federal requirement, when NHTSA's regulations leave that matter to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. Examples of the TTMA recommendations going beyond the NHTSA regulations may be found in the directions provided in Recommended Practice No. 56's Part 13.0 on the Vehicle Descriptor (Second) Section Code, and Part 15.0 Vehicle Indicator (Fourth) Section Code. For Recommended Practice No. 53, an example is found in the combined certification and tire-rim information provided in Section 6.0 "Certification Label Requirements." While TTMA is free to make these recommendations, it may be helpful for your members to recognize the distinction between information or labeling required by NHTSA, and which therefore must follow an exact format according to Federal law, as opposed to matters that are within the discretion of the manufacturer and for which the TTMA provides one suggested means by which the requirement(s) may be fulfilled. I also note that in Section 12.5 (pages 12-13) in No. 56, TTMA provides recommendations for handling certification and VIN assignment responsibilities for trailers sold in a bankruptcy sale. You correctly note that NHTSA has not yet issued an interpretation on this issue, and in the absence of a specific fact situation to be addressed, we will not comment. However, your members should be advised that if they decide to follow TTMA's advice on the bankruptcy issue, they will be doing so at their own risk, as NHTSA may not agree with TTMA's recommendation. The safest course if this situation should arise, is to write to the Chief Counsel and ask for an interpretation. We offer the following comments on particular sections of each recommended practice: COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED PRACTICE NUMBER 56 "TRAILER VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER" 2.0 Purpose: An extra sentence should be added to Section 2.1 as follows: "This Recommended Practice references relevant provisions of NHTSA's VIN regulation in parentheses; e.g. (565.3(h)) for the definition of `manufacturer'". 4.4 Trailer Kits: The citation should be changed from "49 CFR 571.115, S2 and S3" to " 49 CFR 565.2". 9.5 Format Section 9.5 addresses situations where there are spaces in a VIN, and comments: "The space can, however, be filled with any approved letter or number listed in Section 9.3." This sentence is not necessarily true. In the twelfth through seventeenth positions of the VIN (production sequence), other than characters designated for use by the SAE in the twelfth through fourteenth positions (because the manufacturer makes fewer than 500 vehicles per year), numbers must be used. Section 565.6(d)(3) states that the twelfth through seventeenth positions "shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process if the manufacturer produces 500 or more vehicles of its type annually." (Emphasis added.) 17.0 Interpretations and Questions: If there are any questions about VINs, the first person TTMA members should contact is the VIN Coordinator at (202) 366-6018. Requests for legal interpretations may be obtained by writing to: Chief Counsel Information on legal interpretations may be obtained from: DOROTHY NAKAMA (202) 366-2992. Please note that NHTSA attorneys do not provide oral interpretations or other "informal answers to questions." Excerpts from Legal Interpretations Issued by NHTSA Pertaining to VINs I suggest the following cautionary language precede the section with excerpts from interpretations:
Interpretation letters are available from: NHTSA Technical Reference, Room 5108, 400 Seventh St., S. W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Phone number (202) 366-4941. Please be sure to reference 49 CFR part or NHTSA regulation being interpreted. NHTSA's interpretation letters are available for viewing on the Internet at: "http:\\www.nhtsa.dot.gov". On the home page, click on "Table of Contents", then on "Regulations and Standards" under "NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search". Letters may be searched by "key words" such as date, name of addressee, or subject matter. Finally, I note that in a June 29, 1993 letter to TTMA, I advised you that the "Anti Car Theft Act of 1992" resulted in adding Section 511, Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers, to Title 18 of the United States Code. Section 511 provides that whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, for purposes other than repair, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. It may be helpful to your members if Section 511 was mentioned somewhere in the recommended practice, perhaps in the section containing excerpts from NHTSA's legal interpretations. COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED PRACTICE NUMBER 53 "U. S. TRAILER CERTIFICATION LABEL" 3.1 References: The correct title for Standard No. 120 is Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars and the correct title for Part 568 is Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. 4.2 Certification Label ... Specifications: 4.2 should read as follows: "The label must be affixed to a location on the forward half of the left side of the trailer such that it is easily readable from outside the trailer without moving any part of the trailer." 6.0 Certification Label Examples: 6.2 The example shown in S6.2 (certification label not combined with Std. 120 labeling requirements) provides the correct information in the correct order specified in Part 567. However, in the S6.2 example, the "Date of Manufacture" should read "Month and Year of Manufacturer", as specified at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(2). The information "All Axles 19,000 with 10.00-20(F) Tires" should be preceded by "Gross Axle Weight Rating [GAWR]". 6.8 In the example shown in S6.8, "Date of Manufacture" should read "Month and Year of Manufacture." Excerpts from Rulemaking and Interpretations On excerpts from interpretation letters, my earlier comments provided for Recommended Practice Number 56 also apply to this discussion. I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, ref:565#567#120 d.9/11/97 |
1997 |
ID: nht76-4.41OpenDATE: 03/26/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Thomas A. Kirwan III - Capco TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1976, requesting information concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applicable to transit vehicles, specifically, Dodge vans that will be used in a rural transportation system. The answers to your questions are as follows: (1) "Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?" If your Dodge vans are designed to carry 10 persons or less they would qualify as "multipurpose passenger vehicles", as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3. As multipurpose passenger vehicles, the Dodge vans would be subject to the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards listed below. The standards marked with an asterick (*) are equipment standards and do not apply to the vehicles themselves. Rather, these standards set forth requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment for use in multipurpose passenger vehicles. No. 101 - Control Location, Identification, and Illumination. No. 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. No. 103 - Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems. No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. *No. 106-74 - Brake Hoses. No. 107 - Reflecting Surfaces. No. 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors. No. 112 - Headlamp Concealment Devices. No. 113 - Hood Latch System. *No. 116 - Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. No. 118 - Power Operated Window Systems. *No. 119 - New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. No. 120 - Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. No. 124 - Accelerator Control Systems. *No. 125 - Warning Devices. *No. 205 - Glazing Materials. No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components. No. 207 - Seating Systems. No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection. *No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies. No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub Caps. No. 213 - Child Seating Systems. No. 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion. No. 301-75 - Fuel System Integrity. No. 302 - Flammability of Interior Materials. The manufacturer of the Dodge vans must affix a label to each vehicle certifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, as required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. This certification label should be affixed to the door or door post of each vehicle, and you should check to make certain that it is present. Please note that if the Dodge vans are designed to carry more than 10 persons, they would be classified as "buses" under 49 CFR Part 567.3, and the list of applicable safety standards would differ. (2) "Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit?" No. The NHTSA has issued only the requirements found in the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. (3) "Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those filled with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)?" No. Such vehicles must meet the same standards as other MPV's. (4) "Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service?" Yes. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, 49 CFR 571.205, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Rigid plastic materials that are to be used as covers for openings in the roof of a vehicle must conform to the requirements specified in paragraph S5.1.2.1 of Standard No. 205. (5) "Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?" Yes. Driver qualifications for transit vehicles are governed by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR Part 391, Qualifications of Drivers. (6) "Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system?" At the present time the NHTSA has not issued any general guidelines concerning the organization or operation of transit systems. You may, however, wish to contact the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of this Department for information on this subject. I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. Please contact us if we can of any further assistance. Yours truly, ATTACH. CAPCO February 25, 1976 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Gentlemen: The Capital Area Planning Council is in the process of implementing a rural transportation system as part of the Federal Highway Administration's Rural Highway Public Transportation Demonstration Program (Section 147 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973). We are, therefore, interested in obtaining information concerning vehicle specifications and safety standards for transit vehicles. Since our transit fleet will be entirely composed of Dodge vans rather than standard transit buses, we are uncertain as to which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply specifically to vans used in transit operations. Could you assist us by providing the answers to the following questions: 1) Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service? 2) Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit? 3) Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those fitted with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)? 4) Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service? 5) Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications? 6) Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system. Enclosed is a draft of our vehicle specifications. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions prior to March 10 so the necessary revisions may be made before our public hearings begin. Yours very truly, Thomas A. Kirwan III -- Transportation Planning Intern Enclosure Vehicle Specifications (Minimum Requirements) 1 ton - 125" wheelbase 350 cu. in. 8 cyl. engine 7400 lbs. GVW Min. Front Axle 3300 lbs., Rear Axle 5050 lbs. Automatic Transmission Power Disc Brakes Power Steering Heavy Duty Front/Rear Shock Absorbers Heavy Duty Front/Rear Springs Heavy Duty Alternator Heavy Duty Battery Heater (High Capacity) Air Conditioning (High Capacity) - 22,000 B.T.U. Slant Line or Vented Tinted Glass Windows Gauges - Oil Pressure and Ammeter Lighting Package (Door Actuated) Exterior Lighting to meet F.M.V.S.S. Insulation Package Undercoating Dual Electric Horn and Horn Bar Large Lo-Mount Side Mirrors Seat Belts for all Passengers Two Speed Electric Wipers and Window Washer Exhaust Emission Controls to meet F.M.V.S.S. and State Code High Capacity Fuel Tank Tires 8.00 x 16.5 (10 Ply Truck Type or Steel Radial) Front Stabilizer Bar Oil Filter - 1 Quart Freight, Handling, and Dealer Preparation Modifications Raised, Collapse Resistant Steel Roof Cap Restructured, penetration resistant sidewalls, and rear end sections Gas Tank Shield Drive Shaft Guards Passenger Door Entrance Heavy Duty Driver Door Control (manual) Entrance Door and Front Section Padding Passenger Grab Rails Two Leaf Side Door (Extended Doorway) Electric Hydraulic Lift, Expanded Metal Ramp, Semi-Automatic/Manual Override (minimum lift capacity 500 lbs.) Wheelchair Tie Downs (2 prs. mounted at 45 degrees) Rubber Non-Skid Flooring First Aid Kit 2 3/4 lbs. - 10 BC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher Reflector Flare Kit |
|
ID: 1917yOpen Ms. Gay M. Arthur Dear Ms Arthur: This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked if "detachable, lighted novelty items are legally allowable on passenger cars," specifically "for the exterior roof." You appear to have in mind an item of aftermarket equipment, that is to say, an item which is not original equipment on a car, but one that the vehicle owner purchases during the course of his ownership. There is no restriction under Federal law as to roof-mounted novelty items if they are installed by the vehicle owner. If they are installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, they are permissible as long as they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For example, if installation of the novelty light affected the wiring and hence the performance of lighting equipment installed on the vehicle by its manufacturer, that would be a "rendering inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. Use of the novelty light would be determined by the laws of a State in which it is operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that, for further information, you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:7/24/89 |
1989 |
ID: GF009467OpenChristopher E. MacDonald, President Dear Mr. MacDonald: This is in response to your letter asking whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110; "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less" apply to low-speed vehicles. As explained below, they do not. By way of background, a low-speed vehicle is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as follows: "Low-speed vehicle (LSV) means a motor vehicle, (1) that is 4-wheeled, (2) whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (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, and (3) whose GVWR is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds)". There are only two FMVSSs applicable to low-speed vehicles. They are, FMVSS No. 500; "Low speed vehicles," and FMVSS No. 205 "Glazing materials."I enclose both standards. I note FMVSS No. 500 incorporates certain requirements found in other FMVSSs by reference. However, the requirements in FMVSS No. 110 are not referenced in FMVSS No. 500. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood 2 Enclosures ref:110 |
2006 |
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.