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: nht94-8.11OpenDATE: February 14, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/2/93 from Jane L. Dawson to Charlie Hott (OCC-9045) TEXT: This responds to your questions about a December 2, 1992, rule that amended Standard No. 111, Rear-view mirrors, by establishing field-of-view requirements around school buses (57 FR 57000). The rule amended Standard No. 111 to require a bus driver to be able to see, either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of and along both sides of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your first question asks: Are we required to certify that the mirror system HAS THE ABILITY to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system HAS BEEN adjusted? Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each new vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicle complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). NHTSA evaluates a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards using the test procedures and conditions specified in the FMVSS's. Standard 111 requires that specified areas must be visible when viewed from the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female (S9, S13). The test procedures of S13 state that, when testing a school bus, NHTSA will adjust an adjustable mirror to the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female before the test, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations (S13.3). Of course, to comply with Standard 111, the mirror will have to be able to be adjusted to the required location at the time NHTSA tests the vehicle. Your second question asks: Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area straight down from the mirrors and 200 feet rearward? In an October 21, 1993, telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you ask whether S9.2 of Standard 111 requires measurement beginning at the ground below the System A mirror (and extending at least 200 feet behind that plane). The answer is yes, the mirror must provide a view of the area straight down from that mirror and extending 200 feet rearward. Section S9.2 states that each school bus must have two outside rearview mirror systems: A System A driving mirror and a System B convex cross view mirror. The System A mirror on the left side of the bus is required by S9.2(b)(2) to provide a view of "the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, AND OF THAT AREA OF THE GROUND WHICH EXTENDS REARWARD FROM THE MIRROR SURFACE not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet)" (emphasis added). Please note that the agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition in which Blue Bird Body Company has requested that the agency amend Standard No. 111, with respect to System A driving mirrors. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. |
|
ID: nht94-1.53OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: February 14, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/2/93 from Jane L. Dawson to Charlie Hott (OCC-9045) TEXT: This responds to your questions about a December 2, 1992, rule that amended Standard No. 111, Rear-view mirrors, by establishing field-of-view requirements around school buses (57 FR 57000). The rule amended Standard No. 111 to require a bus driver to b e able to see, either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of and along both sides of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your first question asks: Are we required to certify that the mirror system HAS THE ABILITY to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system HAS BEEN adjusted? Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each new vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicle complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). NHTSA evaluates a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards usi ng the test procedures and conditions specified in the FMVSS's. Standard 111 requires that specified areas must be visible when viewed from the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female (S9, S13). The test procedures of S13 state that, when testin g a school bus, NHTSA will adjust an adjustable mirror to the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female before the test, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations (S13.3). Of course, to comply with Standard 111, the mirror will have to be able to be adjusted to the required location at the time NHTSA tests the vehicle. Your second question asks: Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area straight down from the mirrors and 200 feet rearward? In an October 21, 1993, telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you ask whether S9.2 of Standard 111 requires measurement beginning at the ground below the System A mirror (and extending at least 200 feet behind that plane ). The answer is yes, the mirror must provide a view of the area straight down from that mirror and extending 200 feet rearward. Section S9.2 states that each school bus must have two outside rearview mirror systems: A System A driving mirror and a System B convex cross view mirror. The System A mirror on the left side of the bus is required by S9.2(b)(2) to provide a view of "the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, AND OF THAT AREA OF THE GROUND WHICH EXTENDS REARWARD FROM THE MIRROR SURFACE n ot less than 60.93 meters (200 feet)" (emphasis added). Please note that the agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition in which Blue Bird Body Company has requested that the agency amend Standard No. 111, with respect to System A driving mirrors. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. |
|
ID: 9045Open Ms. Jane L. Dawson Dear Ms. Dawson: This responds to your questions about a December 2, 1992, rule that amended Standard No. 111, Rear-view mirrors, by establishing field-of-view requirements around school buses (57 FR 57000). The rule amended Standard No. 111 to require a bus driver to be able to see, either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of and along both sides of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your first question asks: Are we required to certify that the mirror system has the ability to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system has been adjusted? Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each new vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicle complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). NHTSA evaluates a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards using the test procedures and conditions specified in the FMVSS's. Standard 111 requires that specified areas must be visible when viewed from the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female (S9, S13). The test procedures of S13 state that, when testing a school bus, NHTSA will adjust an adjustable mirror to the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female before the test, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations (S13.3). Of course, to comply with Standard 111, the mirror will have to be able to be adjusted to the required location at the time NHTSA tests the vehicle. Your second question asks: Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area straight down from the mirrors and 200 feet rearward? In an October 21, 1993, telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you ask whether S9.2 of Standard 111 requires measurement beginning at the ground below the System A mirror (and extending at least 200 feet behind that plane). The answer is yes, the mirror must provide a view of the area straight down from that mirror and extending 200 feet rearward. Section S9.2 states that each school bus must have two outside rearview mirror systems: A System A driving mirror and a System B convex cross view mirror. The System A mirror on the left side of the bus is required by S9.2(b)(2) to provide a view of "the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, and of that area of the ground which extends rearward from the mirror surface not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet)" (emphasis added). Please note that the agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition in which Blue Bird Body Company has requested that the agency amend Standard No. 111, with respect to System A driving mirrors. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:111 d:2/14/94 |
1994 |
ID: 8753Open The Honorable Tillie K. Fowler Your Reference: 95-0167-J Dear Congresswoman Fowler: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dail Taylor of St. Augustine, Florida. Mr. Taylor requested assistance, stating that his company would have to stop manufacturing passenger motor vehicles if the vehicles must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). I appreciate the concerns of Mr. Taylor as a small businessman and offer the following information. In order to protect motorists and their passengers, a Federal statute requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs regulating motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Mr. Taylor's company, Goodlife Motor Company, wrote to NHTSA asking whether their "super golf cars" were motor vehicles and therefore subject to the FMVSSs. NHTSA's Chief Counsel responded by letter that the answer was "yes". We were informed that the "super golf cars" are intended for use on public roads. NHTSA has two criteria for determining whether a vehicle that regularly uses the public roads is considered to be a "motor vehicle." A vehicle is not a motor vehicle if it meets both of the following criteria: the vehicle has an abnormal configuration distinguishing it from other vehicles; and the vehicle cannot attain speeds over 20 miles per hour (mph). The "super golf cars" do not meet either criterion. We have determined that because the vehicles resemble passenger cars, they do not have an abnormal configuration. As to speed, we note that the top speed of the vehicles, 29 mph, is approximately the speed at which NHTSA conducts crash tests to see whether vehicles meet certain safety standards. It is also a speed at which vehicle occupants can readily suffer serious or even fatal injuries in a crash. We note further that older adults are more susceptible than younger adults to injury in motor vehicle crashes. This is particularly important since we understand that one of the primary expected uses of the "super golf car" is in retirement communities. As motor vehicles, the "super golf cars" must meet the FMVSS. As the president of a small business, Mr. Taylor has a number of compliance options. First, he can comply with the current safety standards. I appreciate that the costs of compliance would be significant. Second, Mr. Taylor may petition NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to amend the current safety standards to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. NHTSA has authority to establish different levels of requirements for vehicles of different sizes. However, it lacks the authority to vary the stringency of requirements based on the size of a vehicle manufacturer. Third, NHTSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to small manufacturers. Mr. Taylor may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more of the safety standards. However, as we explained to Mr. Taylor, temporary exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. Further, the exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across- the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted. Mr. Taylor may himself prepare and submit any petition. We have enclosed copies of our regulations regarding petitions for rulemaking and petitions for exemption. If Mr. Taylor has any questions or needs further information on how to proceed under any of the three options discussed above, we will gladly provide assistance. Please ask him to contact Taylor Vinson at (202)366-2992. Sincerely,
Carol Stroebel, Director Intergovernmental Affairs Enclosures ref:VSA d:4/19/95
|
1995 |
ID: 9495Open Mr. Perry McGlothan Dear Mr. McGlothan: This responds to your letter to me about the head impact protection and protrusion limitation requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. We received under separate cover the three child seats you sent for illustration purposes, samples of Models 4560, 4590 and the STE 1000. You discuss in your letter a new method you would like to use to attach the head impact protection foam to the child restraint shell. The foam would be attached to the shell by means of two push-in pins, each 1/2 inch in length and with a 3/4 inch diameter head, as distinguished from the padding being glued to the shell as in the past. You stated that this change would better secure the foam padding to the shell and help your manufacturing process. You asked us whether the new method would meet the head impact protection requirement of S5.2.3 (for restraints recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds) and the protrusion limitations of S5.2.4. As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement action. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and is subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine production units of these models and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control. You first inquire, "Please advise as to compression deflection," which we understand as asking whether S5.2.3.2 would permit you to secure the foam with the pins. We cannot tell you whether the foam padding would satisfy S5.2.3 of Standard 213. The compression deflection resistance and thickness of the material can only be determined in a compliance laboratory, using the laboratory procedures described in the standard. S5.2.3.2 states that each system surface, except for protrusions that comply with S5.2.4, which is contactable by a dummy head must be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. As explained in the next paragraph, the pins we examined appear to satisfy S5.2.4. Further, the pins might not be contactable by the dummy head in Standard 213's dynamic test. However, whether they are contactable can only be determined in the standard's dynamic test. S5.2.4 requires that any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to S5.2.3 shall meet specified limits on height and radius of exposed edge. Based on our visual inspection, the pins we saw appear to be within those limits. Again, however, the Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for determining compliance in the first instance on you, the manufacturer of the child restraint. We still have the three seats that you sent us. We plan to dispose of them unless we hear from you. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:213 d:4/8/94 |
1994 |
ID: nht94-6.45OpenDATE: April 8, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Perry McGlothan -- Quality Assurance Test Specialist, Century Products Company (Macedonia, OH) TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 from Perry McGlothan to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9495) TEXT: This responds to your letter to me about the head impact protection and protrusion limitation requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. We received under separate cover the three child seats you sent for illustration purposes, samples of Models 4560, 4590 and the STE 1000. You discuss in your letter a new method you would like to use to attach the head impact protection foam to the child restraint shell. The foam would be attached to the shell by means of two push-in pins, each 1/2 inch in length and with a 3/4 inch diameter head, as distinguished from the padding being glued to the shell as in the past. You stated that this change would better secure the foam padding to the shell and help your manufacturing process. You asked us whether the new method would meet the head impact protection requirement of S5.2.3 (for restraints recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds) and the protrusion limitations of S5.2.4. As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement action. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and it subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine production units of these models and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control. You first inquire, "Please advise as to compression deflection," which we understand as asking whether S5.2.3.2 would permit you to secure the foam with the pins. (*1) S5.2.3.2 states that each system surface, except for protrusions that comply with S5.2.4, which is contactable by a dummy head must be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. As explained in the next paragraph, the pins we examined appear to satisfy S5.2.4. Further, the pins might not be contactable by the dummy head in Standard 213's dynamic test. However, whether they are contactable can only be determined in the standard's dynamic test. S5.2.4 requires that any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to S5.2.3 shall meet specified limits on height and radius of exposed edge. Based on our visual inspection, the pins we saw appear to be within those limits. Again, however, the Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for determining compliance in the first instance on you, the manufacturer of the child restraint. We still have the three seats that you sent us. We plan to dispose of them unless we hear from you. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992. * 1 We cannot tell you whether the foam padding would satisfy S5.2.3 of Standard 213. The compression deflection resistance and thickness of the material can only be determined in a compliance laboratory, using the laboratory procedures described in the standard. |
|
ID: nht95-2.40OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: April 19, 1995 FROM: Carol Stroebel, Director -- Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA TO: Honorable Tillie K. Fowler -- Member, U.S. House of Representatives TITLE: Your Reference: 95-0167-J ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/10/95 LETTER FROM TILLIE K. FOWLER TO RICARDO MARTINEZ; ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/4/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO FORBES HOWARD TEXT: Dear Congresswoman Fowler: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dail Taylor of St. Augustine, Florida. Mr. Taylor requested assistance, stating that his company would have to stop manufacturing passenger motor vehicles if the vehicles must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). I appreciate the concerns of Mr. Taylor as a small businessman and offer the following information. In order to protect motorists and their passengers, a Federal statute requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs regulating motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Mr. Taylor's company, Goodlife Motor Company, wrote to NHTSA asking whether their "super golf cars" were motor vehicles and therefore subject to the FMVSSs. NHTSA's Chief Counsel responded by letter that the answer was "yes". We were informed that the "super golf cars" are intended for use on public roads. NHTSA has two criteria for determining whether a vehicle that regularly uses the public roads is considered to be a "motor vehicle." A vehicle is not a motor vehicle if it meets both of the following criteria: the vehicle has an abnormal configuration distinguishing it from other vehicles; and the vehicle cannot attain speeds over 20 miles per hour (mph). The "super golf cars" do not meet either criterion. We have determined that because the vehicles resemble passenger cars, they do not have an abnormal configuration. As to speed, we note that the top speed of the vehicles, 29 mph, is approximately the speed at which NHTSA conducts crash tests to see whether vehicles meet certain safety standards. It is also a speed at which vehicle occupants can readily suffer serious or even fatal injuries in a crash. We note further that older adults are more susc eptible than younger adults to injury in motor vehicle crashes. This is particularly important since we understand that one of the primary expected uses of the "super golf car" is in retirement communities. As motor vehicles, the "super golf cars" must meet the FMVSS. As the president of a small business, Mr. Taylor has a number of compliance options. First, he can comply with the current safety standards. I appreciate that the costs of compliance would be significant. Second, Mr. Taylor may petition NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to amend the current safety standards to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. NHTSA has authority to establish different levels of re quirements for vehicles of different sizes. However, it lacks the authority to vary the stringency of requirements based on the size of a vehicle manufacturer. Third, NHTSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to small manufacturers. Mr. Taylor may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more of the safety standards. However, as we explained to Mr. Taylor, temporary exemptions are primarily grant ed as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. Further, the exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standard s have not been granted. Mr. Taylor may himself prepare and submit any petition. We have enclosed copies of our regulations regarding petitions for rulemaking and petitions for exemption. If Mr. Taylor has any questions or needs further information on how to proceed under any of the three options discussed above, we will gladly provide assistance. Please ask him to contact Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 05-005754drnOpenScott Molinari, Service Coordinator Dear Mr. Molinari: This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning whether Terex-Demag products that your company imports into the United States are "motor vehicles". You asked four questions, which are addressed below. You specifically asked that we address whether the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is a "motor vehicle". You have enclosed brochures (with photographs and diagrams) describing the AC 80-2, as well as brochures for a number of other products. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated. You first question was whether the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is considered a "motor vehicle". In response, we note that NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:
We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle". We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles. If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle," it must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in order to be imported into the United States (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)). Based on the brochure provided with your letter, we believe the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is substantially similar to the mobile cranes that were the subject of our interpretation letters of March 11, 1999, to Mr. Chun Jo and of October 20, 2003, to Mr. Michael E. Ogle. As in the cases of the products at issue in these letters, for the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane, the use of the highway appears to be merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Therefore, we do not consider the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 to be a "motor vehicle". I note that while you indicated in your letter that you were particularly concerned about the AC 80-2, you enclosed literature about other products. For the same reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, it is our opinion that the other cranes for which you provided individual brochures, specifically, the AC 500-2, AC 250-1, AC 140, AC 200-1, AC 55, AC 40 City, and AC 30 City are not considered to be "motor vehicles". Your second question was whether, if the Terex-Demag products are not motor vehicles, they can legally operate on the highway or any other road without "DOT stamps". I note that you stated in your letter that you are having difficulty obtaining 20.5" tires that have the DOT stamp on them. I will therefore assume that you are asking whether your products may legally operate on the highway if they have tires that are not marked "DOT". The marking of "DOT" on a tire constitutes certification by the manufacturer that the tire meets applicable FMVSSs. If a vehicle is not a motor vehicle, our regulations would not apply to the vehicle, and it would not be required to have tires that met the FMVSSs. The vehicle could, however, be subject to state regulations. Your third question concerned our October 20, 2003, letter to Mr. Ogle. You ask if there has been a change in the legal position taken in our interpretation letter to Mr. Ogle. As you are aware, we noted to Mr. Ogle that our interpretations on mobile construction equipment are based on a court decision issued in 1978. We further stated:
As of this writing, we have not revisited the issue of whether mobile construction equipment such as that manufactured by Terex-Demag should be considered motor vehicles. Thus, the October 20, 2003 interpretation letter to Mr. Ogle remains unchanged. Your fourth question is whether there are State laws that "could also warrant the need for DOT stamps on tires of non-motor vehicles". I will assume that in this question, you ask whether there are State laws that require non-motor vehicles to have tires that are certified as meeting NHTSA FMVSSs for tires. You would need to consult the State laws of each of the fifty states to determine the answer to this question. The enclosed letter of August 16, 2004, to Kelly A. Freeman, Esq. provides additional guidance in determining when products used in construction may be "motor vehicles". I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure |
2005 |
ID: 2774yOpen Mr. Malcolm B. Mathieson Dear Mr. Mathieson: This responds to your letter to former Chief Counsel Erika Jones concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release to school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. Your letter expressed concern about a recent opinion from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which states that school buses used in interstate commerce and thus subject to FHWA's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's) are required by the FMCSR's to comply with the provisions in Standard No. 217 applicable to buses other than school buses. Your letter included copies of a recent letter from Thomas Buses to FHWA on this issue, as well past interpretations by FHWA and this agency. As you are aware, Standard No. 217 contains specific emergency exit requirements for school buses, as well as requirements for other buses. As noted in your letter to FHWA, and in our past interpretations, including the July 5, 1984 letter to Ron Marion that you enclosed, it is NHTSA's position that all buses sold as school buses must comply with the school bus requirements in Standard No. 217. We recognize that this position may conflict with FHWA's interpretation of their regulations, and we are seeking resolution of this issue with FHWA to resolve any inconsistencies between the FMVSS's and the FMCSR's. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:217 d:l2/3/90 |
1990 |
ID: 08-007039drn eddsOpenMr. Daryl Edds Director of Operations Mechanicsville Christian Center 8161 Shady Grove Road Mechanicsville, VA 23111 Dear Mr. Edds: Thank you for your letter requesting information bearing on your decision whether your church should buy a new van or a mini-bus. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, Mr. David Coker of your church explained that a van was a 15-passenger van and that the mini-bus is a bus that meets this agencys school bus or multifunction school activity bus (MFSAB) standards. We understand that, among other uses, the vehicle would be used to transport children in your congregation, and that there is no school (other than Sunday school) associated with your church. Some background information may be helpful. 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 (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) to sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applying to school buses. An MFSAB may be sold if the school transportation does not involve school bus route transportation (i.e., that do 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). From the information you present, it does not appear to us that you are required to be sold a school bus or an MFSAB, since your church will not be transporting children to or from school or related events. We note, however, that NHTSA believes that school buses (including MFSABs) are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. Conversely, we have had numerous safety campaigns to warn people of the risk of rollover in 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. I am enclosing, for your information, copies of an April 6, 2000 letter to Mr. Ted Cashion and an October 1, 2003 letter to U.S. Representative Chris Chocola addressing transportation for children attending church schools. All enclosures referenced in each of these letters are also provided. 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 attending church 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. Since your church is operating in Virginia, you should contact Virginia state officials to determine if there are any State requirements that pertain to your purchase of the vehicle. You also asked us to address issues of liability relating to the use of 15-passenger vans. The information enclosed discusses a few general concerns associated with the operation of 15-passenger vans. You should ask your insurance agent or private attorney any questions you may have about private tort liability. 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 Enclosures ref:VSA d.2/17/09 |
2009 |
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.