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: aiam1886OpenMr. J.E. Kuykendall, Director - Parts Sales, Cummins Sales & Service Inc., 600 Watson Road, P.O. Box 1008, Arlington, Texas 76010; Mr. J.E. Kuykendall Director - Parts Sales Cummins Sales & Service Inc. 600 Watson Road P.O. Box 1008 Arlington Texas 76010; Dear Mr. Kuykendall: #This responds to your letter of March 25, 1975 to Mr. Francis Armstrong of this agency, concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses, as applied to brake hose assemblies. #The labeling requirements for brake hose assemblies became effective on March 1, 1975. On March 4, the NHTSA proposed a change in the definition of 'brake hose assembly' which would exclude certain assemblies from the requirements of the standard (40 F.R. 8962, copy enclosed.) Notice of a final decision on this proposal will be published in the Federal Register. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0794OpenMr. Melvin Aanerud, Manager, Mille Lacs Reservation Business Enterprise, Star Route, Vineland, MN 56359; Mr. Melvin Aanerud Manager Mille Lacs Reservation Business Enterprise Star Route Vineland MN 56359; Dear Mr. Aanerud: This is in reply to your letter of July 20 to the Department o Transportation concerning your 'pulsating safety brakelite.'; The performance of your device will be considered as a potentia required or optional feature during future amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.'; Thank you for your interest in highway safety. Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3012OpenMr. Jack W. Sperr, Coordinator, Pupil Transportation, Department of Education, 942 Lancaster Drive, N.E., Salem, OR 97310; Mr. Jack W. Sperr Coordinator Pupil Transportation Department of Education 942 Lancaster Drive N.E. Salem OR 97310; Dear Mr. Sperr: This responds to your April 6, 1979, letter asking several question about the applicability of the school bus safety standards to van-type vehicles.; First, you ask whether a vehicle that transports more than 10 person and is constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards must be painted, lighted and marked as a school bus. As you know, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly permitted Type II school vehicles, under 16 passengers, to be marked, painted, and lighted at the option of the school district. As a result of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492), all school buses must be equipped with school bus lights. Since they must have lights, they must also be painted and marked as school buses. Therefore, all school vehicles carrying more than 10 persons must be properly painted, marked and lighted.; In your second question you ask whether a school can purchase and use noncomplying used van manufactured after April 1, 1977. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates, for the most part, vehicles up to the point of first purchase. Therefore, the sale of a noncomplying used vehicle would be beyond the control of this agency. However, we caution schools purchasing such vehicles that they may be unable to insure them, and they may be responsible for significantly increased liability in the event of an accident. Further, we encourage States not to license such vehicles for the transportation of school children.; Third, you ask whether the standard applies to leased or rente vehicles. The answer to your question is yes. Part 571.3 of our regulations (49 CFR 571) defines school bus as 'a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce,...' The phrase introduced in interstate commerce includes the lease or rental of vehicles for school use. Since these leased or rented vehicles are considered school buses, they must comply with the safety standards.; In your fourth question, you ask whether a contractor or school ca remove seats from a van that it inadvertently purchased so that as modified it will transport 10 or fewer persons. A school or contractor can modify its own vehicles any way that it chooses. A dealer, manufacturer, or repair business, on the other hand, cannot alter a vehicle in any manner that would render inoperative its compliance with Federal safety standards. The agency notes that if a school removes seats from the van in the manner suggested in your letter, the van would no longer be required to comply with the school bus safety standards. However, a new van-type vehicle that transports 10 or fewer persons must comply with safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV). Your modified vehicle probably would not comply with these MPV requirements. You should remember that the operation of a noncomplying school bus or a noncomplying MPV does not subject a school to liability to the NHTSA. However, a school's private liability in the event of an accident might be increased.; In your final question, you ask whether the NHTSA is enforcing th school bus regulations. The agency has taken extensive steps to enforce its school bus regulations. These include a major testing program of buses manufactured in compliance with the standards. As a result of these tests, some noncompliances have been determined and some remedies have occurred. With respect to the sale of vans as school vehicles, the agency has warned many dealers of the illegality of this practice, and in most instances, these dealers have repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law.; We encourage States to adopt licensing practices that ensure tha vehicles used to transport school children and manufactured after April 1, 1977, comply with the safety standards. Many States now have such licensing programs, and the problem of van misuse is rapidly diminishing in those areas. We further encourage States to report instances of violations to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. That Office will take the necessary steps to enforce the law.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3442OpenMr. Dietmar K. Haenchen, Volkswagen of America, Inc., 27621 Parkview Boulevard, Warren, MI 48092; Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Volkswagen of America Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren MI 48092; Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your recent letter asking which of the specifi requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, must be met by an automatic seat belt assembly that is installed in a vehicle in accordance with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*.; The agency has stated in the past that automatic seat belt assemblie must meet the adjustment requirements of paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 that are incorporated by reference in S7.1, whether or not the automatic belts are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 or Safety Standard No. 208. Automatic belts that are installed to comply with the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other requirements of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. As noted in your letter, paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208 requires the automatic belt assembly to have a retractor that complies with Safety Standard No. 209. However, the requirements for retractor performance in Safety Standard No. 209 are based on other tests in the standard which are used for preconditioning or as prerequisites. Therefore, you state that it is not clear which requirements must be met by a retractor on an automatic belt assembly.; Paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208 is only intended t incorporate by reference those provisions in Safety Standard No. 209 that are directly related to retractor performance. Therefore, all automatic belt retractors are required to comply with the following provisions of Safety Standard No. 209, S4.3(j), S4.3(k), and S5.2(a), (b), (j), and (k). Please note, however, that the retractors do not have to comply with paragraph S4.4 which is incorporated by reference in S4.3(k), since S4.4 relates to the performance of entire belt assemblies.; I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. We apologize for th delay.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4387OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Assoc., 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Assoc. 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: With reference to your phone conversation with Make Peskoe on Septembe 8, I have enclosed a copy of an NHTSA opinion which concludes that a person adding a snow plow to a completed vehicle is not required to certify the vehicle. In such a case, the existing certification label should be left in place. You should note that the opinion also states that if the mounting of the snow plow causes the vehicle not to conform to any applicable motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle is not brought back into conformity before sale, the person mounting the plow will be violating section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety act, and will be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions as prescribed in sections 109 and 110 of the Act.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1185OpenMr. Glen Tillotson, R. R. #2, Cokaton, MN 55321; Mr. Glen Tillotson R. R. #2 Cokaton MN 55321; Dear Mr. Tillotson: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1973, concerning problem that you foresee for your company under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. The primary problem you describe is the need to test brakes on vehicles that you produce in very small quantities.; The standards promulgated by this agency under the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act do not impose a mandatory level of testing on regulated manufacturers. If we purchase a manufacturer's product, test it, and find that it fails an applicable standard, to avoid liability for noncompliance, the manufacturer must then establish that he exercised due care in assuring himself that the product conformed to the standard. The most common method by which manufacturers assess their product's conformity with a standard is by testing the products in accordance with the procedures of the standard. A manufacturer may, however, contract to have this testing done by an outside laboratory, may rely on adequate information provided him by a supplier, or use other reasonable means to make sure that his products comply.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4112OpenMr. Marshall D. Carter, Whisper Electric Car AS, 87 Hadsundve, Als, DK-9560 Hadsund, Denmark; Mr. Marshall D. Carter Whisper Electric Car AS 87 Hadsundve Als DK-9560 Hadsund Denmark; Dear Mr. Carter: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking tw questions with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; With respect to electric vehicles, you have asked 'is there a standar regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?' There is no such standard. The vehicle must be equipped with a hazard warning signal operating unit designed to conform to SAE J910, January 1966, and a hazard warning signal flasher designed to conform to SAE J945, February 1966, but there is no requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, that the hazard warning signal flashers perform for a minimum specified period of time in service.; You have also asked 'Is there a requirement that the vehicle b equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection?' We are unable to confirm your conclusion that there is no such requirement under Standard No. 101. Paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions or patterns be permanently displayed in front of the driver. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 requires illumination of the 'gauges' listed in Column 1 of Table 2 that are accompanied by the word 'Yes' in Column 5. The last 'gauge' listed is 'Automatic gear position', and the word 'Yes' appears in Column 5. The automatic gear position is a 'gauge' as defined by paragraph S4 of Standard No. 101, 'a display that is listed in ...Table 2 and is not a telltale'. Thus the Federal standards do require illumination of the gear positions of automatic transmissions, but not of manual ones.; I hope that this responds to your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1310OpenMr. J.R. Farron,Group Director of Engineering,The Bendix Corporation,Automotive Control,Systems Group,401 Bendix Drive, South Bend, Indiana 46620; Mr. J.R. Farron Group Director of Engineering The Bendix Corporation Automotive Control Systems Group 401 Bendix Drive South Bend Indiana 46620; Dear Mr. Farron:#This replies to your letter of October 17, 1973.#W have studied the comment contained in your letter carefully, and based on your extensive experience, have no reason to believe that your use of tubing made of solid neoprene rubber for the application in question constitutes a safety hazard.#Since there is a limited movement involved, the use of 'tubing' rather than 'hose' is appropriate. The Bureau has not, as yet, established standards other than the general requirements of paragraph 393.43(a) for brake tubing used in applications which do not flex. Use of coiled nylon brake tubing for connections between the requirements for Type 3b nylon tubing set forth in SAE Standard J844.C.#We appreciate your interest in this safety matter and trust the above is responsive to your inquiry.#Sincerely yours,W.R. Fiste, Chief,Regulations Division; |
|
ID: aiam3287OpenMr. R. W. Hildebrandt, Group Director, Engineering, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group, The Bendix Corporation, 901 Cleveland Street, Elyria, OH 44035; Mr. R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director Engineering Heavy Vehicle Systems Group The Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria OH 44035; Dear Mr. Hildebrandt: This responds to your April 8, 1980, letter asking for a interpretation of section 5.2.1.1 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. In particular, you ask whether your system complies with the provisions of that section which require that vehicles have a reservoir capable of releasing the parking brakes in the event of an emergency failure of the service brake system. You indicate that your system is in compliance with the intent of this section but may not be in technical compliance with the actual requirements. Nonetheless, you believe that your system complies based upon a letter of interpretation made by the agency to Berg Manufacturing Company dated August 27, 1979.; The August letter to Berg to which you refer in your letter wa conditioned upon our reading of the facts as stated by Berg in their letter. That letter as it applied to section 5.2.1.1 was not an interpretation of the standard, but rather an assessment by the agency as to whether we believed that the Berg system would comply with the requirements. At that time and based upon the given facts, we stated to Berg that we felt that their system would comply.; The agency has always been reluctant to issue such letters, because i is impossible to determine compliance based upon a manufacturer's description of its vehicles or from vehicle drawings. It is necessary for the agency to conduct tests to be certain whether a vehicle will comply. Accordingly, the agency always indicates in its letters that any assessment of compliance is contingent upon the description made in the manufacturer's letter, and that our opinions only reflect our engineering expertise and in no way bind the agency should we test the vehicle and find a noncompliance. In fact, we have frequently indicated to manufacturers that these letters are of little or no value to them.; Subsequent to the issuance of the Berg letter, the agency has receive a clearer picture of how the Berg system operates. We have notified that company that their system does not comply with the requirements of the standard. Berg has indicated to the agency that they consider their system to be as good as any that is in complete compliance with the standard and has petitioned the agency to amend the standard in a way that would permit their system. The agency is now looking into the Berg request. We suggest that you closely follow that rulemaking action.; With respect to your system, it appears that it too would not compl with the technical requirements of the standard, because your system does not have a reservoir capable of releasing the parking brakes in the event of service brake failure. Although the agency appreciates your argument that your system meets the intent of the standard for the release of parking brakes when the service brake system fails, nonetheless the standard is specific in its requirement that a reservoir be provided that is capable of releasing the parking brakes. We cannot by interpretation remove the reservoir requirement. Our rulemaking effort with respect to the Berg petition will address the question of whether the reservoir requirement remains necessary in the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4542OpenMr. Steve Zlotkin Overland Parts, Inc. 48368 Milmont Dr. Fremont, CA 94538; Mr. Steve Zlotkin Overland Parts Inc. 48368 Milmont Dr. Fremont CA 94538; "Dear Mr. Zlotkin: This is in response to your letter seeking a interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, your letter stated that your company would like to import some non-laminated windshields into the United States. I apologize for the delay in our response. As explained below, your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling this type of windshield because it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Standard No. 205 establishes performance and marking requirements for all glazing installed in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference the requirements of Standard ANS Z-26, 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' of the American National Standard Institute. Standard ANS Z-26 requires that glazing materials for windshields must pass a specified group of test requirements. ANS Z-26 specifies that glazing materials that comply with these test requirements for windshields must be marked AS-1. To date, the only glazing materials that have been marked AS-1 have been laminated safety glass. Unless your non-laminated windshields can meet the requirements for AS-1 glazing and are marked AS-1, they do not comply with the requirements for windshields specified in Standard ANS Z-26 or Standard No. 205. You also should be aware that Standard No. 205 permits glass-plastic glazing. The importation and sale of noncomplying glazing would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act'), the statute under which Standard No. 205 was issued. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides: No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard... Your letter set forth two interpretations of the law under which you suggested that your company might be able to import noncomplying windshields. Your first interpretation relied on the fact that these windshields can only be installed in vehicles that were manufactured between 1953 and 1967. Since Standard No. 205's requirements for windshields did not become effective until January 1, 1968, you suggested that the provisions of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act might not apply, because no safety standards were applicable to these vehicles. This suggestion is incorrect. All windshields manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205, regardless of the year of manufacture of the vehicle on which the windshield is designed to be installed. In fact, safety standards relating to components such as brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, glazing materials, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers are applicable to components manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, even if those components are manufactured for motor vehicles manufactured before that date. In a January 16, 1987 interpretation letter to Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott (copy enclosed), the agency stated that the above listed component parts including glazing materials that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, would have to comply to the relevant safety standards (in the case of glazing, Standard No. 205) even though the underlying motor vehicle was a 1965 Jaguar. Assuming that the non-laminated windshields that were the subject of your letter were in fact manufactured after January 1, 1968, Standard No. 205 applies to those windshields. As already noted, Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits your company from importing any windshields that are subject to Standard No. 205 that do not comply with that standard. Your second suggestion is that your company would be willing to place a sticker on these windshields to warn purchasers that the windshields do not comply with Standard No. 205. The Safety Act contains no exception to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition for noncomplying equipment, even if it were to be labeled as noncomplying. Hence, section 108(a)(1)(A) prohibits the importation of noncomplying windshields without regard to any warning labels on the windshields. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
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.