Skip to main content

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 12691 - 12700 of 16510
Interpretations Date
 search results table

ID: nht72-6.29

Open

DATE: 01/31/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Universal Fire Apparatus Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1971, in which you state that you place a fire pump and body on a chassis which you purchase, and ask whether you are required to place a certification label or vehicle alteration label on the vehicle.

It is unclear to us to what you refer by vehicle alteration label. However, based on the very limited information you have provided it appears that you are in final stage manufacturer under section 568.3 of the regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in two or More States" (49 CPR Part 568). As such you are required, pursuant to Section 568.6 to complete the vehicle so that it conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, and to certify compliance to those standards by affixing a certification label in the manner set forth in section 567.5 of the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).

Copies of both the Certification regulations and regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More States" are enclosed.

If you have further questions please write.

ID: nht72-6.3

Open

DATE: 10/06/72

FROM: EUGENE B. LASKIN FOR FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA

TO: Clay Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 5, 1972, in which you enclose a copy of your brochure describing a "Honey Wagon" and ask what our requirements are.

The "Honey Wagon" described in your brochure appears to be manufactured primarily for off-road use. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply to off-road use vehicles.

If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht72-6.30

Open

DATE: 07/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: McLaughlin Equiqment Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1972, concerning the remounting of old school bus bodies on new chassis. You indicate that this practice is occuring in North Dakota, enclose an advertising brochure of a company that performs the service, and also enclose a copy of a letter from Mr. Robert B. Klure of the Divco-Wayne Corporation which discusses possible safety problems that may result from this practice. You have asked us to outline actions and procedures that can be taken by the NHTSA or your office to curtail this practice.

The NHTSA considers the mounting of an old school bus body on a new chassis to be manufacturing of a vehicle, which must conform to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the day of the manufacture of the chassis, or of the completed vehicle. The failure of a school bus manufactured in this fashion to conform to applicable standards would be a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1)), and could subject its manufacturer to civil penalties and other sanctions. In addition, such vehicles must be certified as conforming to all applicable standards, and the failure of a manufacturer to certify can also result in the imposition of similar sanctions.

It appears from the discussion of safety problems in Mr. Klure's letter that the mounting of old school bus bodies on new chassis creates safety problems that the NHTSA might consider to be safety related defects. If a finding is made by NHTSA that such a defect exists, the manufacturer would be required to notify owners of the defect, and the NHTSA would probably urge the manufacturer to conduct a recall campaign.

In either case the NHTSA will take steps to see that all manufacturers are complying with NHTSA requirements. You can assist us by providing the names of companies which you believe are engaging in this practice. This information should be sent to Mr. Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standards Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Adminsitration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

ID: nht72-6.31

Open

DATE: 06/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: All Brake & Drive Unit Service Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of February 14 and April 20, 1972. I apologize for our delay in answering your inquiries. You state that your G.M.C. truck dealership installs fifth wheels, saddle gas tanks, mirrors, marker lamps and tractor protection brake equipment and you inquire what your obligations are with respect to the Manufacturer Identification and Certification regulations (Parts 566 and 577 respectively).

Installation of fifth wheels would make you a "final-stage manufacturer", as defined in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, because you perform "such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle", other than the addition of "readily attachable components, such as mirror or tire and rim assemblies". Installation of the other items you listed would generally not make you a final-stage manufacturer, since installation of these items does not fulfill the above criteria.

As a final-stage manufacturer, you are required under Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit the information specified in @ 566.5. Your submittal of January 18, 1972, satisfies this requirement.

As a final-stage manufacturer, you are also required under Part 567, Certification, to affix a certification label on the vehicle you manufacture. In addition, Part 573 requires the submission of quarterly reports regarding vehicle production and defect notifications (49 CFR @ 573.5) and of copies of all other notices, bulletins and communications sent to more than one dealer or purchaser regarding any defect in such vehicles, whether or not safety-related.

I am enclosing copies of Parts 566, 567, 568, and 573 for your information. These should also answer your questions as to the format of the required submittals.

ID: nht72-6.32

Open

DATE: 01/04/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ellwood T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 21, 1971, relating to the upcoming requirements for GVWR and (Illegible Word) on the vehicle label, under Part 567 of our regulations.

You discussed the difficulties some of your members have had in arriving at the proper values for gross axle weight ratings. To the extent that your discussion highlights the uncertainty that may in the part have existed with respect to the basic load-carrying capacity of vehicle components, it emphasizes the need for the regulation not only as a matter of information but also to ensure the proper design and selection of safety-related components. You asked specifically "what NHTSA would consider to be the requisite test factors which should be utilized for determining wheel ratings." Pending development of performance standards for wheels (or other components), we can only say that the ratings should reflect the manufacturer's own judgement as to the loads that the component can safely carry under the conditions expected to be encountered in use.

The diagrams that you enclosed setting forth basic weighing procedures for determining vehicle and axle loads appear to interpret the regulations correctly.

You mentioned the problem of a possible misunderstanding concerning the measurement of GAWR of a trailer and asked whether the tongue weight may be "deducted from GAWR in arriving at what GAWR should be." The answer is yes, since weight that is carried by the towing vehicle will not be carried by the trailer axle. We should add, however, that GAWR is a rating and therefore may be greater than the actual weight on the axle system when the vehicle is loaded to capacity.

Finally, you requested an "extension of the effective date of the GAWR and GVWR certification requirements to allow time to be sure the industry is advised of the procedure to follow." This request is denied. On the basis of the information available to this agency, it has been determined that our procedures, and the load time between issue and effective date of the regulations, have been fully adequate to allow affected manufacturers to prepare for compliance. Also, by a recent notice published in the Federal Register, we have allowed final-stage manufacturers using incomplete vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972, for which the weight rating information has not been made available, to omit the GVWR and GAWR values from their labels.

ID: nht72-6.33

Open

DATE: 07/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Airport Truck Center Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 23 to Mr. Schneider regarding incomplete vehicle certification and your responsibility as a truck dealership.

The regulation to which you refer is 49 CFR parts 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. It applise to incomplete vehicle manufacturers, intermediate manufacturers, and final-stage manufacturers of vehicle manufactured to two or more stages. Truck dealers who perform these manufacturing functions are required to meet these requirements, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. The regulations do not apply to a truck dealer who does not modify completed vehicle received from a manufacturer or distributor.

Other federal motor vehicle safety regulations and standards are (Illegible Word) in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.

ID: nht72-6.34

Open

DATE: 06/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1972, forwarding to us correspondence you received from Mr. Calvin D. Kunkle of FMC Corporation. Mr. Kunkle's question, as explained in a telephone conversation we had with him on (Illegible Words), is whether building vehicles whose actual loaded weight exceeds the gross vehicle weight rating of the chassis violates Federal Law. Mr. Knuckle stated that he believed certain manufacturers of fire-fighting vehicles were presently doing that.

If the loaded weight is clearly inconsistent with the definitions of GVWR and GAWR as specified in 49 CFR S71.3, the manufacturer will be in violation of the Certification regulations, 49 CFR Part 567) and may be subject to civil penalties. Also, if the loaded weight of the completed vehicle or the weight imposed on any of its axle systems exceeds the stated ratings, the vehicle might be found by NHTSA to contain a safety-related defect. In such a case, the manufacturer is required to mail notification of the defect to all the purchasers. In addressing whether such a safety defect exists, the NHTSA considers the situation as a whole, including such factors as the manufacturer's ratings, and the true capacity of the vehicles.

We advised Mr. Kunkle during our conversation that if he will furnish to NHTSA the names of companies he suspects are involved in this practice, we will take action to bring them into conformity with the requirements.

ID: nht72-6.35

Open

DATE: 02/02/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Triple H Frame Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1971, stating that you are an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and asking for clarification of provisions of section 568.4 of Title 49. Code of Federal Regulations ("Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages"), that refer to standards. You indicated in a phone conversation of December 17, 1971, with Michael Peskoe of this office that you manufacture travel trailer and mobile home frames, which may be equipped by you with both tires and a trailer hitch before being sent to the subsequent manufacturer for completion.

The reference to "standards" in @ 568.4, as you were informed on December 17, is to the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.101 et saq.; formerly 571.21 et seq.) which apply to motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. Copies of the standards, as you were also informed, may be purchased as indicated in the enclosed Notice of Publications Change.

You stated on December 17 that you planned to include the statement of 568.4(a)(7)(iii) as part of your certification label. Based on the information you have provided, this choice appears to be consistent with the requirements of Part 568. This is because the only motor vehicle safety standard presently applicable to trailers and mobile homes in Standard No. 108. (Illegible Words) Devices, and Associated Equipment. It appears quite possible that conformance to this standard would not be substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle you manufacture.

We are pleased to be assistance.

ID: nht72-6.36

Open

DATE: 02/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1971, asking whether the Certification regulations (Docket Nos. 70-6, 70-8, 70-15) apply to pole trailers. The Docket numbers you refer to also include the regulations concerning "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages."

As there are no motor vehicle safety standards presently applicable to pole trailers, neither the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) nor the regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Part 568) apply to them. As you were informally informed, however, pole trailers manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, that are equipped with air brake systems would be required to comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, and their manufacturers would be required to comply with the Certification regulations and, where applicable, the regulations governing Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

ID: nht72-6.37

Open

DATE: 01/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 29, 1971, requesting our concurrence on three opinions you have furnished to the Recreational Vehicle Institute concerning the application of Part 567, "Certification," and Part 568. "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages, to certain recreational vehicles. The opinions, each the subject of a separate letter from you to Mr. Phillip H. Sharke or PVI, are discussed separately below:

1. Your first letter, dated November 18, 1971, concerns the possibility that travel trailers may be "vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and subject to Part 560 and the appropriate sections of Part 367. if an "assemblage" is purchased from a supplier for completion, as opposed to when only individual component parts are purchased. This interpretation is correct. Travel trailers, like other vehicles, would be vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, if an assemblage consisting of at least the components specified in the definition of "incomplete vehicle" (@ 566.3) in delivered to another person for completion. In addition, each of the first three "consequences" listed on pages 2 and 3 of your letter are essentially correct. With respect to consequence number 4, the party against whom the NHTSA would proceed should a defect be discovered in a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages would depend upon which manufacturer was responsible for the defect. In most situations, however, it is the final-stage manufacturer who would be contacted first, as this would be necessary to determine whether the defect resulted from his activities or the activities of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

2. Your second letter, dated November 22, 1971, takes the position that Part 568 applies to the situation where a completed panel or automobile type truck is modified into a motor home. This analysis is incorrect. The definition of incomplete vehicle is Part 568 (#568.3) specifies that such a vehicle "requires further manufacturing . . . to become a completed vehicle." This is not the same as modifying one completed vehicle into another, the case you describe. In such a situation the issue is only whether sufficient modifications are made to the original truck to consider the one who modifies it a manufacturer in his own right. As the type of vehicle is being changed, as you state, from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, this question would most likely be answered in the affirmative. In such a case, the manufacturer of the motor home bears full responsibility for compliance with all applicable standards, and stands in the same relationship to the truck manufacturer as all vehicle manufactures stand to their suppliers when components that must meet standards are involved. The burden would be on the modifying manufacturer to show that his modification did not affect the base vehicle's compliance with a standard, if a nonconformity were discovered. The same reasoning would apply in determining responsibility for safety related defects.

3. Your third letter of November 29, 1971, discusses two issues. The first is whether GVWR for trailers should include weight specified for each designated seating position. Based on the definitions of "designated seating capacity" and "designated seating position" in 49 CFR 571.3 you conclude that as state laws generally provide that for each designated seating position. You amplify this with regard to fifth wheel trailers, stating that if any state allows persons to ride in such trailers, then the appropriate weight for each designated seating position should be included.

Whether or not a trailer has "designated seating position" depends upon the manufacturer's intention in designing the trailer. If a manufacturer does not include designated seating positions, whether or not due to state law, then such weights need not be included in the gross vehicle weight rating.

Your second question is whether the hitch or (Illegible Word) weight is to be included in establishing GVWS. This question was answered in our letter of January 4, 1972.

Finally, with reference to inclusion of specific fluid in determining various weights, those fluids such as water, etc., used in recreational vehicles for purposes other than vehicle operation are considered to be cargo.

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.