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: nht95-5.51OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 4, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: George E. Walton -- International Manufacturer's Consultants, Inc. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 07/13/95 LETTER FROM GEORGE WALTON TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11044) TEXT: Dear Mr. Walton: This responds to your July 13, 1995 letter requesting an interpretation regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You stated in your letter that your client wants to know if Standard No. 205 permits the use of laminated AS-1 glass in motorcycle windshields. The answer to your question is yes. ANSI Z26.1-1977, which has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 205, explicitly refers to item 1 glazing (defined as including laminated glass) as "Safety Glazing Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle." Motorcycles are motor vehicles. Therefore, item 1 glazing is permitted in that application. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. |
|
ID: nht95-3.72OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 4, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: George E. Walton -- International Manufacturer's Consultants, Inc. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 07/13/95 LETTER FROM GEORGE WALTON TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11044) TEXT: Dear Mr. Walton: This responds to your July 13, 1995 letter requesting an interpretation regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You stated in your letter that your client wants to know if Standard No. 205 permits the use of laminated AS-1 glass in motorcycle windshields. The answer to your question is yes. ANSI Z26.1-1977, which has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 205, explicitly refers to item 1 glazing (defined as including laminated glass) as "Safety Glazing Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle ." Motorcycles are motor vehicles. Therefore, item 1 glazing is permitted in that application. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. |
|
ID: GF002565OpenTony Dosmann, President Dear Mr. Dosmann: This responds to your letter in which you requested an interpretation of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Both regulations require permanently affixed labels. You ask us to explain the meaning of "permanent". In previous letters of interpretation, we have explained that specifying precisely how a label is to be affixed could be design restrictive. However, when the agency requires a permanently affixed label for a vehicle, the label must be affixed in a manner that would make it likely to stay attached and legible during the lifetime of the vehicle, under normal conditions. We have previously stated that a label affixed to the vehicle using adhesives would be considered adequate. Finally, in previous letters we cautioned that labels should not be attached in a manner where they can be easily detached. I have enclosed copies of several relevant letters. I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2005 |
ID: nht80-1.30OpenDATE: 03/11/80 FROM: JAMES W. LAWRENCE -- MANAGER ENGINEERING RELIABILITY & GOVERNMENT STANDARDS DEPT. WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION TO: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. TITLE: FMVSS-115 REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - S 4.5.3.3 SEQUENTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF SERIAL NUMBERS TEXT: Dear Mr. Berndt: White Motor Corporation sequentially assigns serial numbers by customer to enhance problem reporting, repair parts purchasing, vehicle licensing and defect recall. When a customer orders 50 vehicles, the attributes of which are identical, the 50 serial numbers will be sequential and assigned only to those vehicles. During the manufacturing process, if all or part of the order is cancelled, the serial numbers assigned to the unbuilt vehicles are cancelled and not reissued for any other vehicle. The remaining numbers as well as those in preceeding and subsequent customer orders are therefore sequential even though not every number is used. The preamble discussion on page 36451 of the August 17, 1978 Federal Register addressing the issue of some manufacturers desiring to keep confidential the total number of vehicles manufactured is, in our opinion, a corrolary to this condition. White believes, and requests confirmation that, the requirement for sequential assignment does not also require the use of every number in the sequence. Sincerely, |
|
ID: nht92-9.24OpenDATE: February 5, 1992 FROM: Robert Salton -- Engineer, Performance Friction Corp. TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Robert Salton (A39; Std. 105) TEXT: On the recommendation of your staff, I am requesting an interpretation of a regulation contained in the FMVSS-105 Safety Standard. The sections in question are: 1. S.5.1.4.1 (Regulations) 2. S.7.11.1.1 (Procedures) We are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade/recovery test - baseline check stops. The interpretation will make clear to us exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the Fade and Recovery Check Stops. Also, what values of pedal effort would be considered non-compliance (i.e., peak, average, sustained) greater than 10 lbs or less than 0 lbs. I have spoken with Zack Frazier of your staff and he is familiar with our questions. I regret that no data or vehicle instrumentation traces are available to me at this time. Please call me if you have any questions. My need is urgent so as to continue brake system development and testing. |
|
ID: 30102 - What is a motor vehicle - Mac Yousry - 14-000891 5.1.14Open
Mr. Mac Yousry Global Vehicle Services Corporation 1892 N. Main St. Orange, CA 92865
Dear Mr. Yousry:
This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation as to whether a crane that manufacturer XCMG plans to import into the United States is considered a motor vehicle. Based on the information you have provided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider this mobile construction crane to be a motor vehicle.
You have enclosed technical specifications with photographs and detailed descriptions that discuss the crane at issuethe XCMG XCT90U. You provided supplementary information during phone conversations with Ryan Hagen of my office.
By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is a manufacturers responsibility to determine whether a motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. The Vehicle Safety Act considers importers to be manufacturers. Manufacturers (importers) must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.
If a vehicle is a motor vehicle, it must comply with all applicable FMVSSs to be imported into the United States (Vehicle Safety Act, 30112(a)). The question presented is whether the XCMG XCT90U is a motor vehicle.
Section 30102(a)(6) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as follows:
a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.
We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle." Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. 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 because the highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, and not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.
From your letter, specification sheet, and phone conversations, we understand the following about the XCT90U: It has a curb weight of 112,169 pounds and a top speed of 62.5 miles per hour. The crane is manufactured primarily for use on fixed job sites and only sees incidental road use for travel from one job site to another. The manufacturer estimates that a typical crane will travel 1,000 miles and service 15 job sites per year. The technical specifications state that the XCT90Us [m]ulti-axle plate spring balance suspension contributes to better passing ability
Some of the information about the XCT90U, such as the better passing ability and top speed, seem to indicate the vehicles use on the highway would be beyond incidental. However, given that the XCT90U would spend almost a month at a job site as well as other factors, we believe the on-road use of this equipment is not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Further, the XCT90Us boom specifications, lifting capacity, and overall appearance are similar to the crane evaluated in our letter to Mr. Michael E. Ogle, which we determined was not a motor vehicle.[1] Therefore, we do not consider the XCT90U to be a motor vehicle.
Please note that the views expressed in this letter are limited to the XCMG model XCT90U. This letter is not generally applicable to all XCMG vehicles. Our interpretation is based on the information you have provided us. In the event contrary information emerges, the agencys opinion is subject to change.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ryan Hagen of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Dated: 6/10/15 49 U.S.C 30102
[1] See letter to Michael E. Ogle, Schiller International Corp. (October 20, 2003) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/004597drn.html). |
2015 |
ID: nht90-3.38OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: August 1, 1990 FROM: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corporation TO: Taylor Vincon -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-27-90 to C. Zeitlow from P. J. Rice; (A36; Std. 108); also attached to photocopies of Federal Register (text omitted) TEXT: I spoke with Kevin Cavey last week regarding section 108 of the FMVSS. He suggested I write to you for clarification of the following issue: When a hazard warning light (four-way flasher) and a rear stop light are together on a vehicle, which should be the over-riding feature? Per Mr. Cavey, the hazard warning light should always over-ride the rear stop light. If this is correct, will you please confirm this fact in writing? If this is not correct, will you please direct us to the section of the regulation which would explain the proper installation procedure? Also, if the stop lights were to override the fl ashers, should the front flashers be steady burning or flashing? We have also noticed that in Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Section SlO8-10, page SS-210, only SAE Standard J588e is referenced, J1395 is not shown. Will this section be updated to reflect the SAE change? Thank you. I will await your reply. |
|
ID: 8529Open Mr. Bob Davis Dear Mr. Davis: This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1993, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206 as it affects the rear doors of ambulances that your company manufactures. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that your ambulances have two rear doors, and that each has locking mechanisms that can be operated both from the outside and inside of the doors. Your specific question is whether you can eliminate the inside locking mechanism on one of the rear doors without violating Standard No. 206. The language in S4.1.3 of Standard No. 206 that you noted in your letter (i.e., "Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.") refers to side doors, but not to rear doors. Thus, your company's ambulances need not be equipped with locking mechanisms on each rear door. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel
ref:206 d: 7/27/93 |
1993 |
ID: Wagar.1OpenMr. Terry W. Wagar Dear Mr. Wagar: This responds to your e-mail of June 2, 2003, asking whether a proposed New York State bill (A5226) would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Your correspondence attached a version of the bill and expressed concern regarding an amendment to existing State law that would require motor vehicles sold in New York (except motorcycles) to be equipped with a blind spot mirror. I would note that except for a change in dates, it is our understanding that the New York Assembly sought to pass a nearly identical provision in 1996 (A9376, March 5, 1996). In the enclosed interpretation letter to Mr. R. Karbowski, we stated that the proposed State requirement would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). Because the State legislative provision and the applicable Federal laws have remained essentially unchanged in relation to this matter, NYS bill A5226 would be similarly preempted for the reasons set forth in our earlier interpretation letter. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2003 |
ID: nht91-1.45OpenDATE: February 19, 1991 FROM: Howard "Mac" Dashney -- Pupil Transportation Consultant, State of Michigan, Department of Education TO: Paul Rice -- NHTSA COPYEE: Roger L. Lynas; Richard Claflin TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Howard "Mac" Dashney (A37; VSA 1391(3); Part 571.3) TEXT: During the past 14 months, Michigan has experienced legislative and vehicle sales initiatives that have resulted in confusion among school districts and private fleet operators about vehicles used to transport students. On August 15, 1990, Public Act 187 (PA-187) of the Public Acts of 1990 went into effect. I have included a copy of the act. Section 10(1) states that, "A vehicle for which there are no applicable passenger protection federal motor vehicle safety standards shall not be used to transport passengers to and from school and school related events." Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors officials sent letters to their Michigan dealer networks. I have included a copy of Ford Motor Company's letter. The automobile manufacturers directed their dealers not to lease or sell certain types of vehicles to schools. They are multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events. The Michigan Department of Education, Department, has many questions about the purchase, sale, and use of this type of vehicle. The Department requests that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration respond to the following questions: 1. Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, FMVSS, apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events? 2. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events? 3. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? 4. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? 5. Are FMVSSs in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events? 6. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events? 7. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? 8. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? The passage of PA-187 and a restrictive vehicle sales policy have caused confusion among Michigan's school bus fleet operators. Your timely responses to the above questions will assist the Department prepare an appropriate vehicle use policy. Please direct your response to Howard "Mac" Dashney, Pupil Transportation Consultant, Michigan Department of Education, P.O. Box 30008, Lansing, Michigan 48909.
Attachment FORD K. C. Magee Ford Motor Company General Marketing Manager 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 43318 Detroit, Michigan 48243 December 14, 1989 To: All Ford Dealers Subject: Sale or Lease of Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons for Student Transportation PURPOSE This letter is intended to help remedy confusion that apparently exists among some dealers as to what vehicles may be lawfully sold or leased for student transportation. Both Federal and state motor vehicle safety laws and regulations apply to such vehicles. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and related regulations specify that school buses offered for sale shall meet certain unique requirements. "School bus" is defined in the regulations as "a bus that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. "Bus," in turn, is defined as "a motor vehicle ... designed for carrying more than 10 persons." 49 Code of Federal Regulations S571.3. Units Having More Than Ten Seating Positions Because Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons having more than ten designated seating positions do not comply with the requirements of Federal standards specifically applicable to school buses, they should not be sold or leased for transportation of preprimary, primary, or secondary school students to and from school or related events. For sells incomplete vehicles (Econoline Vans and Cutaways with School Bus Prep Packages and B-Series Chassis Cowls) to be completed as school buses by specialized school bus manufacturers. Units Having Ten or Fewer Seating Positions The Federal school bus standards do not apply to Ford 5, 7 and 8 passenger Club Wagons as these vehicles are not "designed for carrying more than 10 persons." There may be, however, state or local regulations requiring special equipment or identification that must be satisfied before the lower capacity Club Wagons may be used for student transportation. It is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations are applicable. Units for Transportation of College or University Students Questions sometimes arise concerning sale or lease of Club Wagons and Super Wagons to colleges and universities to transport students on field trips or athletic events. An opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator indicates that vehicles used for such purposes are not considered to be "school buses" in determining applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, as the opinion points out, individual states are free to regulate vehicles used to transport college and university students if they chose to do so. Dealer Responsibilities Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that it considers the seller of a vehicle to be the person most likely to know its intended use, Ford Motor Company recommends that all dealers who sell or lease a Club Wagon or a Super Wagon as manufactured by Ford Motor Company with more than 10 designed seating positions obtain for his files a signed statement from the purchaser or lessee that the vehicle is not being purchased or leased for carrying students to and from school or related events. If a dealer sells or leases such a vehicle and knows or has reason to know that the purchaser or lessee intends to use the vehicle as a school bus, the dealer may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As stated above, it is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations apply to vehicles sold or leased for student transportation. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact your district office. K. C. Magee |
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.