NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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

Displaying 8211 - 8220 of 16490

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam4332 Open Mr. John B. Krueger, Staff Engineer, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 3001 West Big Beaver, Suite 602, Troy, MI 48084; Mr. John B. Krueger Staff Engineer Society of Automotive Engineers Inc. 3001 West Big Beaver Suite 602 Troy MI 48084; Dear Mr. Krueger: This is in reply to your letter of February 10, 1987, asking th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to define the term 'optically combined' as used in paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Presently, the SAE is circulating for comment its own proposed definition of the term, to be incorporated into SAE J387 Terminology -Motor Vehicle Lighting.; For Many years paragraph S4.4 (your referenced S4.4.1 which wa renumbered recently) has contained a prohibition against optically combining a clearance lamp with a taillamp or an identification lamp. NHTSA has provided written interpretations to those who have asked whether specific designs are 'optically combined' within the meaning of paragraph S4.4, but the agency has not added a definition to paragraph S3, the definition section of the standard. If a definition is to be provided, it must be incorporated into the standard, and the agency is unable to do that without first formally proposing the definition and offering the public an opportunity to comment upon it. I can say, however, that the SAE's proposed definition is not inconsistent with the interpretations of the agency.; These interpretations are available in the NHTSA docket room (Roo 5109, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.) for your reference should you or other SAE staff or committee members wish to examine them.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4197 Open Mr. Davis Thekkanath, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, 2307 Oregon St., Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, Certification, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4196 Open Mr. Davis Thekkanath, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, 2307 Oregon St., Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, Certification, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4199 Open Mr. Davis Thekkanath, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, 2307 Oregon St., Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, Certification, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1521 Open Robert Markowitz, Esq., Lieberman, Tratras & Markowitz, Shepherd Law Plaza Building, 1300 Shepherd Drive, Houston, TX 77007; Robert Markowitz Esq. Lieberman Tratras & Markowitz Shepherd Law Plaza Building 1300 Shepherd Drive Houston TX 77007; Dear Mr. Markowitz: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1974, enclosing a check fo $1,000 and a suggested defect notification letter on behalf of your client, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company.; The notification letter you enclose fails to conform in significan respects to 49 CFR Part 577, Defect Notification. The regulation presumes the notification will be sent by the manufacturer, as required by statute, and requires statements conforming to sections 577.4(a) and 577.4(b) to comprise the opening and second statements of the notification. We consider the format you have used, that of sending the letter in the name of an attorney for the company, to be inconsistent with this requirement. The first three sentences of the sample letter should thus be stricken. Moreover, section 577.4(b)(1) requires the vehicle or equipment which contain the defect to be identified in the second statement. Trailers are vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and not 'equipment.' We will accept as sufficient identification the year, model number if any, and the words 'utility trailer' in meeting section 577.4(b)(1). The reference to equipment is inappropriate in that it implies that the defect is in the lighting (which is equipment) rather than in the vehicle.; Your letter also fails to evaluate the risk to traffic safety a required by section 577.4(d). In most cases, the potential result of a failure to install required lighting is vehicle crash, and the notification should thus conform to section 577.4(d)(1).; We consider the second and third sentences of your second paragraph an the second sentence of your next to last paragraph ('This notification is intended . . .') to be disclaimers and prohibited by section 577.6. Each should be stricken.; The sample notification letter must be revised as set forth above t conform to Part 577. In addition, the defect report (49 CFR Part 573) is required to be submitted within 5 days of the determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, and not within 5 days of the mailing of notification letters. Your report should thus be submitted forthwith.; We will hold your check until you have submitted a notification lette and defect report in accordance with our requirements. At that time we will deposit the check and inform you that the case is closed.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4555 Open George F. Ball, Esq. Office of the General Counsel General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232; George F. Ball Esq. Office of the General Counsel General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit MI 48232; "Dear Mr. Ball: This responds to your letter seeking our opinion as t whether a new minivan GM plans to introduce (referred to as the GM 200 minivans in your letter) could be classified as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In your letter, you indicated GM's belief that this new minivan should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. Your company has concluded that this minivan will be constructed on a truck chassis for several reasons. First, you state that this chassis has 'truck attributes' that make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis would be. The examples of such truck attributes set forth in your letter were an integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members, an extended width rear axle, a powertrain certified as complying with the light-duty truck emissions standards, and a flat load floor. Second, you state the chassis is a truck chassis because a cargo van version of this vehicle will be marketed and sold for commercial use. Third, you provided an analysis showing that this minivan will have certain chassis and body characteristics similar to those characteristics of minivans that are now produced and classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles. At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards. It is important for GM to be aware that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by GM, and the tentative classifications may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle. With those caveats, we believe that the GM 200 minivan family could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. The fact that a cargo van version of the GM 200 will be marketed and sold for commercial use is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. Additionally, the front to rear longitudinal side rails and supporting cross-members that are not present on the A-car chassis shows the GM 200 minivan chassis design is more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operations than the A-car chassis. Finally, the characteristics of the GM 200 chassis appear to be similar to the characteristics of other chassis that have been identified as 'truck chassis' by their manufacturers. Accordingly, assuming that your description of the GM 200 chassis is accurate, it appears to us that this minivan is constructed on a truck chassis. The version of your letter to me that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam4703 Open Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Engineering Lighting Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Engineering Lighting Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, l989, t the former Chief Counsel, Erika Jones. You have asked for an interpretation of two of the amendments of May 9, 1989, to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have delayed answering you until action could be taken on petitions for reconsideration of the May 9 amendments. This action was taken on February 8, 1990 (copy of Federal Register notice enclosed), and the new amendments adopted then, effective March 12, l990, include definitions of 'Direct reading indicator' and 'Remote reading indicator.' Section S7.7.5.2(a)(l)(iii) states in pertinent part that each graduation on a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) 'shall indicate a linear movement of the scale indicator of not less than 0.05 in. (1.27 mm) if a direct reading analog indicator is used,' and 'if a remote reading indicator is provided, it shall represent the actual aim movement in a clear, understandable format.' Your letter depicts two devices identified as a 'direct reading analog indicator' and a 'remote reading indicator', and you ask for confirmation that each conforms with the requirements of the section. Preliminarily, we observe that your drawings do not depict how the devices are determined to be 'direct' and 'remote'. Our interpretation of your 'direct indicator' is that the location of the bubble is proportional to the slope of the surface and the adjustment, i.e., as the angle of aim changes, so does the location of the bubble, and its location relative to the graduations changes in proportion to the angle of aim. Our interpretation of your 'remote indicator' is that the location of the bubble represents the difference between the correct setting and the actual setting of the adjustment, and the reading may or mau not be proportional to the difference. Based on these interpretations, either device would appear to be capable of meeting the recently adopted definitions of direct and remote reading indicators. For example, if either device were mounted in its entirety on the headlamp to sense vertical attitude, the devices would both appear to be capable of directly reading the aim of the headlap and also appear to be capable of accommodating variations in floor slope. In this case, each device would meet the definition of a 'direct reading indicator'. And if either device were mounted in whole or in part elsewhere than on the headlamp or its aiming or mounting equipment (e.g., mounted on the firewall, inner fender panel, instrument panel), and linked mechanically to the headlamp such that its vertical aim was correctly displayed on the indicator, each device would also appear to meet the definition of a 'remote reading indicator'. Paragraph S7.7.2 requires in pertinent part that each headlamp aiming mechanism allow aim inspection and adjustment, and be accessible for such uses 'without removal of vehicle parts, except for protective covers removable without the use of tools.' You have asked whether the protective cover mentioned includes the cover to protect the spirit level when it is a component of the VHAD. The answer is no. The protective cover mentioned is one intended to shield the entire VHAD, or a cover that is not transparent and inhibits the proper aim inspection and adjustment. A transparent cover or transparent portions of a cover protecting the indicator (in your case, the spirit level of your direct reading indicator) is not required to be removable. However, if your remote reading indicator has a transparent protective cover, it would be required to be removable without the use of tools to gain access to the dial indicator, if the indicator is not adjustable with the cover in place. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;
ID: aiam1394 Open Mr. John P. Moorehead, Vice-President of Engineering, Research & Development, Open Road Industries, Inc., 2601 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278; Mr. John P. Moorehead Vice-President of Engineering Research & Development Open Road Industries Inc. 2601 Manhattan Beach Boulevard Redondo Beach CA 90278; Dear Mr. Moorehead: We have received correspondence from Mr. & Mrs. William D. Waterhous of Homestead, Florida, concerning the recall campaign in which their 1970 Open Road motor home is involved (NHTSA campaign No. 73-0043). Mr. and Mrs. Waterhouse object to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision which you have required them to agree to in order for your company to repair their vehicle without charge to them. That provision reads,; >>>The undersigned will save and hold Open Road Industries, Inc harmless from and indemnify it against any and all claims, actions, causes of action and damages it may suffer or sustain by reason of making said repair and alteration.<<<; Our records indicate that the recall in question was initiated on Marc 12, 1972. Accordingly, regulations applicable to the owner notification letter (49 CFR Part 577) do not apply, as these regulations first became effective March 26, 1973.; We wish to inform you, however, in the event Open Road Industries find it necessary to conduct notification campaigns in the future, that we would not consider a notification letter such as this to conform to Part 577. We believe the hold harmless and indemnity provision is a charge to the purchaser beyond what is standard business practice in these matters. While no money is demanded, the legal rights which your company demands be relinquished are not without monetary value, and may, as in the case of the Waterhouses, influence the purchaser's decision as to whether the manufacturer should be entrusted to make the repair. While this agency has no authority to compel manufacturers to repair defective vehicles, or to prevent manufacturers from making repairs subject to conditions, it does require through Part 577 that specific information regarding defective vehicles be provided to purchasers. That information is required to be more extensive when the manufacturer does not perform the repair free of charge to the purchaser. Consequently, future notification letters sent by Open Road which include these or similar hold- harmless or indeminity (sic) provisions must specify the measures to be taken to repair the defect in accordance with S 577.4(e)(3), which deals with those cases where the manufacturer does not bear the cost of repair.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2166 Open Interps. File, Safety Standard No. 218; Interps. File Safety Standard No. 218; SUBJECT: Telephone call from Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. a manufacturer of motorcycle helmets; Assistant Chief Counsel Dyson referred a call he received from Mr Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. on December 31, 1975. Mr. Rattner had a question concerning the labeling requirements of S.5.6.1(1) of Safety Stnadard (sic) No. 218, Motor-Cycle Helmets. Subsection of S.5.6.1(1) requires that each helmet be permanently labeled with the manufacturer's 'name or identification.' Rebcor, Inc. is in the process of manufacturing helmets to be sold by another company, and would like to cloak the fact that Rebcor is the manufacturer. Mr. Rattner wanted to know if Rebcor could use a number to meet the labeling requirements of Standard 218, rather than the corporate name.; I returned Mr. Rattner's call and told him that our office ha concluded that S.5.6.(1) did not embrace the type of labeling he had in mind. The words 'name' or 'identification' are synonymous terms in the respect that the intent of the requirement is to absolutely identify the original manufacturer of a helmet. 'Identification' might include, for instance, a corporate logo. However, a randum (sic) number that is not otherwise associated with the corporation or corporate name, would not be an 'identification' within the meaning of Standard No. 218. The purpose of the requirement is to assure that the helmet is traceable to the manufacturer. I informed Mr. Rattner that at the present time there is no system within the NHTSA to register a labeling number, although there is a proposal to establish such a procedure.; Mr. Rattner then asked if Rebcor could establish a dummy-corporation t produce the helmets and place the name of that corporation on the hemets (sic), rather than 'Rebcor.' I informed Mr. Rattner that this would be permissible if the dummy corporation adhered to the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566.; Hugh F. Oates
ID: aiam2165 Open Interps. File, Safety Standard No. 218; Interps. File Safety Standard No. 218; SUBJECT: Telephone call from Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. a manufacturer of motorcycle helmets; Assistant Chief Counsel Dyson referred a call he received from Mr Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. on December 31, 1975. Mr. Rattner had a question concerning the labeling requirements of S.5.6.1(1) of Safety Stnadard (sic) No. 218, Motor-Cycle Helmets. Subsection of S.5.6.1(1) requires that each helmet be permanently labeled with the manufacturer's 'name or identification.' Rebcor, Inc. is in the process of manufacturing helmets to be sold by another company, and would like to cloak the fact that Rebcor is the manufacturer. Mr. Rattner wanted to know if Rebcor could use a number to meet the labeling requirements of Standard 218, rather than the corporate name.; I returned Mr. Rattner's call and told him that our office ha concluded that S.5.6.(1) did not embrace the type of labeling he had in mind. The words 'name' or 'identification' are synonymous terms in the respect that the intent of the requirement is to absolutely identify the original manufacturer of a helmet. 'Identification' might include, for instance, a corporate logo. However, a randum (sic) number that is not otherwise associated with the corporation or corporate name, would not be an 'identification' within the meaning of Standard No. 218. The purpose of the requirement is to assure that the helmet is traceable to the manufacturer. I informed Mr. Rattner that at the present time there is no system within the NHTSA to register a labeling number, although there is a proposal to establish such a procedure.; Mr. Rattner then asked if Rebcor could establish a dummy- corporatio to produce the helmets and place the name of that corporation on the hemets (sic), rather than 'Rebcor.' I informed Mr. Rattner that this would be permissible if the dummy corporation adhered to the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566.; Hugh F. Oates

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.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam4332 Open Mr. John B. Krueger, Staff Engineer, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 3001 West Big Beaver, Suite 602, Troy, MI 48084; Mr. John B. Krueger Staff Engineer Society of Automotive Engineers Inc. 3001 West Big Beaver Suite 602 Troy MI 48084; Dear Mr. Krueger: This is in reply to your letter of February 10, 1987, asking th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to define the term 'optically combined' as used in paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Presently, the SAE is circulating for comment its own proposed definition of the term, to be incorporated into SAE J387 Terminology -Motor Vehicle Lighting.; For Many years paragraph S4.4 (your referenced S4.4.1 which wa renumbered recently) has contained a prohibition against optically combining a clearance lamp with a taillamp or an identification lamp. NHTSA has provided written interpretations to those who have asked whether specific designs are 'optically combined' within the meaning of paragraph S4.4, but the agency has not added a definition to paragraph S3, the definition section of the standard. If a definition is to be provided, it must be incorporated into the standard, and the agency is unable to do that without first formally proposing the definition and offering the public an opportunity to comment upon it. I can say, however, that the SAE's proposed definition is not inconsistent with the interpretations of the agency.; These interpretations are available in the NHTSA docket room (Roo 5109, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.) for your reference should you or other SAE staff or committee members wish to examine them.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4197 Open Mr. Davis Thekkanath, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, 2307 Oregon St., Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, Certification, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4196 Open Mr. Davis Thekkanath, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, 2307 Oregon St., Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, Certification, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4199 Open Mr. Davis Thekkanath, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, 2307 Oregon St., Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, Certification, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1521 Open Robert Markowitz, Esq., Lieberman, Tratras & Markowitz, Shepherd Law Plaza Building, 1300 Shepherd Drive, Houston, TX 77007; Robert Markowitz Esq. Lieberman Tratras & Markowitz Shepherd Law Plaza Building 1300 Shepherd Drive Houston TX 77007; Dear Mr. Markowitz: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1974, enclosing a check fo $1,000 and a suggested defect notification letter on behalf of your client, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company.; The notification letter you enclose fails to conform in significan respects to 49 CFR Part 577, Defect Notification. The regulation presumes the notification will be sent by the manufacturer, as required by statute, and requires statements conforming to sections 577.4(a) and 577.4(b) to comprise the opening and second statements of the notification. We consider the format you have used, that of sending the letter in the name of an attorney for the company, to be inconsistent with this requirement. The first three sentences of the sample letter should thus be stricken. Moreover, section 577.4(b)(1) requires the vehicle or equipment which contain the defect to be identified in the second statement. Trailers are vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and not 'equipment.' We will accept as sufficient identification the year, model number if any, and the words 'utility trailer' in meeting section 577.4(b)(1). The reference to equipment is inappropriate in that it implies that the defect is in the lighting (which is equipment) rather than in the vehicle.; Your letter also fails to evaluate the risk to traffic safety a required by section 577.4(d). In most cases, the potential result of a failure to install required lighting is vehicle crash, and the notification should thus conform to section 577.4(d)(1).; We consider the second and third sentences of your second paragraph an the second sentence of your next to last paragraph ('This notification is intended . . .') to be disclaimers and prohibited by section 577.6. Each should be stricken.; The sample notification letter must be revised as set forth above t conform to Part 577. In addition, the defect report (49 CFR Part 573) is required to be submitted within 5 days of the determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, and not within 5 days of the mailing of notification letters. Your report should thus be submitted forthwith.; We will hold your check until you have submitted a notification lette and defect report in accordance with our requirements. At that time we will deposit the check and inform you that the case is closed.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4555 Open George F. Ball, Esq. Office of the General Counsel General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232; George F. Ball Esq. Office of the General Counsel General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit MI 48232; "Dear Mr. Ball: This responds to your letter seeking our opinion as t whether a new minivan GM plans to introduce (referred to as the GM 200 minivans in your letter) could be classified as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In your letter, you indicated GM's belief that this new minivan should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. Your company has concluded that this minivan will be constructed on a truck chassis for several reasons. First, you state that this chassis has 'truck attributes' that make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis would be. The examples of such truck attributes set forth in your letter were an integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members, an extended width rear axle, a powertrain certified as complying with the light-duty truck emissions standards, and a flat load floor. Second, you state the chassis is a truck chassis because a cargo van version of this vehicle will be marketed and sold for commercial use. Third, you provided an analysis showing that this minivan will have certain chassis and body characteristics similar to those characteristics of minivans that are now produced and classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles. At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards. It is important for GM to be aware that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by GM, and the tentative classifications may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle. With those caveats, we believe that the GM 200 minivan family could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. The fact that a cargo van version of the GM 200 will be marketed and sold for commercial use is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. Additionally, the front to rear longitudinal side rails and supporting cross-members that are not present on the A-car chassis shows the GM 200 minivan chassis design is more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operations than the A-car chassis. Finally, the characteristics of the GM 200 chassis appear to be similar to the characteristics of other chassis that have been identified as 'truck chassis' by their manufacturers. Accordingly, assuming that your description of the GM 200 chassis is accurate, it appears to us that this minivan is constructed on a truck chassis. The version of your letter to me that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam4703 Open Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Engineering Lighting Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Engineering Lighting Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, l989, t the former Chief Counsel, Erika Jones. You have asked for an interpretation of two of the amendments of May 9, 1989, to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have delayed answering you until action could be taken on petitions for reconsideration of the May 9 amendments. This action was taken on February 8, 1990 (copy of Federal Register notice enclosed), and the new amendments adopted then, effective March 12, l990, include definitions of 'Direct reading indicator' and 'Remote reading indicator.' Section S7.7.5.2(a)(l)(iii) states in pertinent part that each graduation on a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) 'shall indicate a linear movement of the scale indicator of not less than 0.05 in. (1.27 mm) if a direct reading analog indicator is used,' and 'if a remote reading indicator is provided, it shall represent the actual aim movement in a clear, understandable format.' Your letter depicts two devices identified as a 'direct reading analog indicator' and a 'remote reading indicator', and you ask for confirmation that each conforms with the requirements of the section. Preliminarily, we observe that your drawings do not depict how the devices are determined to be 'direct' and 'remote'. Our interpretation of your 'direct indicator' is that the location of the bubble is proportional to the slope of the surface and the adjustment, i.e., as the angle of aim changes, so does the location of the bubble, and its location relative to the graduations changes in proportion to the angle of aim. Our interpretation of your 'remote indicator' is that the location of the bubble represents the difference between the correct setting and the actual setting of the adjustment, and the reading may or mau not be proportional to the difference. Based on these interpretations, either device would appear to be capable of meeting the recently adopted definitions of direct and remote reading indicators. For example, if either device were mounted in its entirety on the headlamp to sense vertical attitude, the devices would both appear to be capable of directly reading the aim of the headlap and also appear to be capable of accommodating variations in floor slope. In this case, each device would meet the definition of a 'direct reading indicator'. And if either device were mounted in whole or in part elsewhere than on the headlamp or its aiming or mounting equipment (e.g., mounted on the firewall, inner fender panel, instrument panel), and linked mechanically to the headlamp such that its vertical aim was correctly displayed on the indicator, each device would also appear to meet the definition of a 'remote reading indicator'. Paragraph S7.7.2 requires in pertinent part that each headlamp aiming mechanism allow aim inspection and adjustment, and be accessible for such uses 'without removal of vehicle parts, except for protective covers removable without the use of tools.' You have asked whether the protective cover mentioned includes the cover to protect the spirit level when it is a component of the VHAD. The answer is no. The protective cover mentioned is one intended to shield the entire VHAD, or a cover that is not transparent and inhibits the proper aim inspection and adjustment. A transparent cover or transparent portions of a cover protecting the indicator (in your case, the spirit level of your direct reading indicator) is not required to be removable. However, if your remote reading indicator has a transparent protective cover, it would be required to be removable without the use of tools to gain access to the dial indicator, if the indicator is not adjustable with the cover in place. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;
ID: aiam1394 Open Mr. John P. Moorehead, Vice-President of Engineering, Research & Development, Open Road Industries, Inc., 2601 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278; Mr. John P. Moorehead Vice-President of Engineering Research & Development Open Road Industries Inc. 2601 Manhattan Beach Boulevard Redondo Beach CA 90278; Dear Mr. Moorehead: We have received correspondence from Mr. & Mrs. William D. Waterhous of Homestead, Florida, concerning the recall campaign in which their 1970 Open Road motor home is involved (NHTSA campaign No. 73-0043). Mr. and Mrs. Waterhouse object to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision which you have required them to agree to in order for your company to repair their vehicle without charge to them. That provision reads,; >>>The undersigned will save and hold Open Road Industries, Inc harmless from and indemnify it against any and all claims, actions, causes of action and damages it may suffer or sustain by reason of making said repair and alteration.<<<; Our records indicate that the recall in question was initiated on Marc 12, 1972. Accordingly, regulations applicable to the owner notification letter (49 CFR Part 577) do not apply, as these regulations first became effective March 26, 1973.; We wish to inform you, however, in the event Open Road Industries find it necessary to conduct notification campaigns in the future, that we would not consider a notification letter such as this to conform to Part 577. We believe the hold harmless and indemnity provision is a charge to the purchaser beyond what is standard business practice in these matters. While no money is demanded, the legal rights which your company demands be relinquished are not without monetary value, and may, as in the case of the Waterhouses, influence the purchaser's decision as to whether the manufacturer should be entrusted to make the repair. While this agency has no authority to compel manufacturers to repair defective vehicles, or to prevent manufacturers from making repairs subject to conditions, it does require through Part 577 that specific information regarding defective vehicles be provided to purchasers. That information is required to be more extensive when the manufacturer does not perform the repair free of charge to the purchaser. Consequently, future notification letters sent by Open Road which include these or similar hold- harmless or indeminity (sic) provisions must specify the measures to be taken to repair the defect in accordance with S 577.4(e)(3), which deals with those cases where the manufacturer does not bear the cost of repair.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2166 Open Interps. File, Safety Standard No. 218; Interps. File Safety Standard No. 218; SUBJECT: Telephone call from Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. a manufacturer of motorcycle helmets; Assistant Chief Counsel Dyson referred a call he received from Mr Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. on December 31, 1975. Mr. Rattner had a question concerning the labeling requirements of S.5.6.1(1) of Safety Stnadard (sic) No. 218, Motor-Cycle Helmets. Subsection of S.5.6.1(1) requires that each helmet be permanently labeled with the manufacturer's 'name or identification.' Rebcor, Inc. is in the process of manufacturing helmets to be sold by another company, and would like to cloak the fact that Rebcor is the manufacturer. Mr. Rattner wanted to know if Rebcor could use a number to meet the labeling requirements of Standard 218, rather than the corporate name.; I returned Mr. Rattner's call and told him that our office ha concluded that S.5.6.(1) did not embrace the type of labeling he had in mind. The words 'name' or 'identification' are synonymous terms in the respect that the intent of the requirement is to absolutely identify the original manufacturer of a helmet. 'Identification' might include, for instance, a corporate logo. However, a randum (sic) number that is not otherwise associated with the corporation or corporate name, would not be an 'identification' within the meaning of Standard No. 218. The purpose of the requirement is to assure that the helmet is traceable to the manufacturer. I informed Mr. Rattner that at the present time there is no system within the NHTSA to register a labeling number, although there is a proposal to establish such a procedure.; Mr. Rattner then asked if Rebcor could establish a dummy-corporation t produce the helmets and place the name of that corporation on the hemets (sic), rather than 'Rebcor.' I informed Mr. Rattner that this would be permissible if the dummy corporation adhered to the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566.; Hugh F. Oates
ID: aiam2165 Open Interps. File, Safety Standard No. 218; Interps. File Safety Standard No. 218; SUBJECT: Telephone call from Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. a manufacturer of motorcycle helmets; Assistant Chief Counsel Dyson referred a call he received from Mr Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. on December 31, 1975. Mr. Rattner had a question concerning the labeling requirements of S.5.6.1(1) of Safety Stnadard (sic) No. 218, Motor-Cycle Helmets. Subsection of S.5.6.1(1) requires that each helmet be permanently labeled with the manufacturer's 'name or identification.' Rebcor, Inc. is in the process of manufacturing helmets to be sold by another company, and would like to cloak the fact that Rebcor is the manufacturer. Mr. Rattner wanted to know if Rebcor could use a number to meet the labeling requirements of Standard 218, rather than the corporate name.; I returned Mr. Rattner's call and told him that our office ha concluded that S.5.6.(1) did not embrace the type of labeling he had in mind. The words 'name' or 'identification' are synonymous terms in the respect that the intent of the requirement is to absolutely identify the original manufacturer of a helmet. 'Identification' might include, for instance, a corporate logo. However, a randum (sic) number that is not otherwise associated with the corporation or corporate name, would not be an 'identification' within the meaning of Standard No. 218. The purpose of the requirement is to assure that the helmet is traceable to the manufacturer. I informed Mr. Rattner that at the present time there is no system within the NHTSA to register a labeling number, although there is a proposal to establish such a procedure.; Mr. Rattner then asked if Rebcor could establish a dummy- corporatio to produce the helmets and place the name of that corporation on the hemets (sic), rather than 'Rebcor.' I informed Mr. Rattner that this would be permissible if the dummy corporation adhered to the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566.; Hugh F. Oates

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam4332

ID: aiam4197

ID: aiam4196

ID: aiam4199

ID: aiam1521

ID: aiam4555

ID: aiam4703

ID: aiam1394

ID: aiam2166

ID: aiam2165

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?