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: aiam3658OpenMr. M. Iwase, Manager, Technical Administration Department, Koito Mfg. Co., Shizuoka Works, 500, Kitawaki, Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken, Japan; Mr. M. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi Shizuoka-Ken Japan; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of January 27, 1983, to Mr. Elliott o this agency asking whether your 'lighting device with 1 bulb and 2 functions' is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; The front combination lamp design (parking lamp and side marker lam functions) is permissible provided that, as you note, all color and photometric requirements for the respective functions are met.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1665OpenMs. Joan M. Markey, Rogers and Wells, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017; Ms. Joan M. Markey Rogers and Wells 200 Park Avenue New York NY 10017; Dear Ms. Markey: This is in response to the October 22, 1974 letter from Mr. James L Warren inquiring as to the existence of any Federal safety regulations requiring that a warning against welding be affixed to motor vehicle fuel tanks.; This agency has promulgated no regulation requiring manufacturers t affix a label to the fuel tanks of their vehicles warning against welding. A safety standard does exist which establishes performance levels of fuel systems (49 CFR 571.301). However, the standard's requirements focus on the strength and durability of the system and do not include requirements for labeling.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0977OpenMr. William M. Hicks, Colson & Hicks, Law Offices, 66 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33130; Mr. William M. Hicks Colson & Hicks Law Offices 66 West Flagler Street Miami Florida 33130; Dear Mr. Hicks: This is in response to your letter of January 25, 1973, which requeste information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems*.; This standard was issued by the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration on March 31, 1972. A copy of the standard, including a preamble discussing issues raised in public comments, is enclosed for your review and information.; We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. If we can be o any further service, please let us know.; Sincerely, E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4467OpenMr. Dana Strahan City of Orange Water Department P. O. Box 449 Orange, CA 92666-1591; Mr. Dana Strahan City of Orange Water Department P. O. Box 449 Orange CA 92666-1591; "Dear Mr. Strahan: This is in response to your inquiry earlier thi year to Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of our Rulemaking Division, in which you asked for information about Federal regulations that apply to the labeling of a vehicle that has been modified to increase its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above that on the original label. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our certification regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. For the purposes of this response, I have assumed that you were concerned about modifying vehicles that are already owned by the City of Orange Water Department. If this is incorrect, and you plan to modify new vehicles before their first sale or your department is in the business of modifying other persons' vehicles, please let me know because different requirements would apply. Neither the Safety Act nor any of our standards and regulations apply to modifications individual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Therefore, as a local government agency, the city of Orange, using in-house resources, can perform whatever modifications it desires to its own vehicles. Similarly, our certification regulation does not require modifiers of used vehicles to provide a separate certification label for the modified vehicle. As a word of caution, however, we suggest that any modification made to a vehicle that changes the GVWR assigned by the vehicle's original manufacturer should only be done after the modifier has made a thorough engineering analysis of the entire vehicle. We would suggest that you contact the original vehicle manufacturer for help in making such an analysis. You also indicated that you were concerned about potential liability that could arise if no additional label were affixed to show the modified vehicle's new GVWR. As explained above, a person modifying his or her own vehicle after its first purchase would not be subject to any potential liability under Federal law. If you are asking for information about potential liability under the laws of the State of California, this agency does not comment on such potential liability. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of California or a local attorney for an opinion about potential liability under California law. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4172OpenMr. Brian Peck, President, Rearscope International (U.S.A.) Ltd., 15255 Hesperian Boulevard, San Leandro, CA 94578; Mr. Brian Peck President Rearscope International (U.S.A.) Ltd. 15255 Hesperian Boulevard San Leandro CA 94578; Dear Mr. Peck: Thank you for your letter of May 19, 1986, asking how our regulation apply to your product, which is called the 'Rearscope Wide Angle Lens.' Your letter and the brochure you enclosed describes your product as a wide angle acrylic lens which mounts on the rear window of a bus and gives the driver a wider field of view to the rear of the vehicle. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazin Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) as well as other performance requirements for glazing.; Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to add-on window coverings such as tinting films, sunscreening devices, and lens. However, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install a device on the glazing, such as the viewing lens described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install any type of device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the window. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to regulate the use of viewing devices in vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0998OpenMr. Walter S. McPhail, President, Lectron Products, Inc., 1810 Stephenson Highway, Troy, MI 48084; Mr. Walter S. McPhail President Lectron Products Inc. 1810 Stephenson Highway Troy MI 48084; Dear Mr. McPhail: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1973, concerning you safety belt interlock system.; Paragraph S7.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, requires that the belt system at each occupied seating position be operated after the occupant is seated in order to start the engine. It is our opinion that a system such as yours, which senses whether the safety belt is properly buckled around the occupant before allowing the engine to start would meet the above requirements and could be used under the option described in S4.1.2.3.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1370OpenMr. M. L. Higgins, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. M. L. Higgins Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Higgins: This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1973, asking whethe motor vehicle new or used car dealers are prohibited from selling vehicles mounted on regrooved or recapped tires. You indicated in a phone conversation with Michael Peskoe of this office that your concern is with motor vehicles generally, and not passenger cars alone.; New passenger cars are required to be sold with tires meeting th requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.110). New vehicles other than passenger cars are not presently required by NHTSA regulations to be sold with particular tires, but requirements in this regard have been proposed (36 F.R. 14273, August 3, 1971).; This agency has no requirements regarding the sale of used moto vehicles equipped with recapped or retreaded tires. However, buses subject to Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations are prohibited from operating with recapped, retreaded, or regrooved tires on their front wheels (49 CFR S 393.75(d)).; Trucks and truck tractors subject to Motor Carrier Safety requirement may not be operated with regrooved tires on the front wheels which have a load carrying capacity equal to or greater than that of 8.25-20 8 ply-rating tires (49 CFR 393.75(e)). For more inforamtion regarding the applicability of these requirements you should contact, Regualtions Division Bureau of Motor carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.; The sale of regrooved tires is subject to regulations issued by thi agency (49 CFR Part 569). the recent opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals (*NAMBO* v. *Brinegar*, D.C. Dir., Case No. 71-1268, July 26, 1973) appears to allow the sale of regrooved tires under these regulations in certain circumstances. We believe the opinion is unclear in this regard, and as a result we have determined to seek additional judicial review to further clarify the matter.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0576OpenMr. F. S. Murley, Administrative Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. F. S. Murley Administrative Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Murley: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1971, concerning th responsibility for compliance with Standard No. 108 and with the Certification regulations for vehicles you manufacture to which snow plows are added. You present four hypothetical situations, listed below.; >>>1. 'Complete - the plow equipment is mounted at OTC and a complet truck is delivered to the dealer or customer.' Your interpretation that 'OTC must conform on all counts as the manufacturer of a complete vehicle sold to the first purchaser and certify a complete vehicle' is correct.; 2. 'Chassis only to OTC dealer - the dealer mounts the plow equipment The dealer may also be a dealer for the plow equipment or he may purchase same.'<<<; The answer depends on whether the chassis is a complete or incomplet vehicle under Parts 567 and 568. If the vehicle as you manufacture it is a complete vehicle, OTC must build the truck so that it conforms with Standard No. 108, and certify the vehicle in accordance with section 567.5. If the mounting of the snow plow by the dealer adversely affects conformity, and the dealer does not bring the vehicle back into conformity before sale, he will be violating Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions as prescribed in sections 109 and 110 of the Act. He need not, however, certify the vehicle. Your certification will be sufficient.; If the vehicle as you manufacture it is an incomplete vehicle, OTC mus either forward to the dealer the appropriate documents specified in section 568.4, or assume legal responsibility for conformity and certification under the provisions of S 567.5(b) and S 568.7(a). In the first case, the dealer would be the final-stage manufacturer, and would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 108 and the certification regulations. In the second, OTC would have the responsibility for the completed vehicle, and would not have to furnish the Part 568 document. Your own answer on page 2 of your letter is incorrect. The reference to 'purchasers' in S 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is to purchases for the express reason of resale.; >>>3. 'Chassis only to OTC dealer - the plow manufacturer mounts th plow for the dealer. The dealer buys the plow equipment from the plow manufacturer. OTC may ship a chassis (incomplete) direct to the plow manufacturer or to the dealer who in turn ships to the plow dealer or manufacturer.'<<<; In this case the plow manufacturer would be in the same position as th dealer in question 2, and the answer would otherwise be similar.; >>>4. 'Complete - the plow equipment is mounted by the plo manufacturer. OTC sends an incomplete vehicle chassis to the plow manufacturer who mounts the plow equipment and ships the complete vehicle to the customer, usually an OTC dealer.'<<<; The answer to this question is also similar to the answer to questio 2. OTC is the incomplete manufacturer, and the plow manufacturer the final-stage manufacturer, and their responsibilities are as outlined above.; We regret that it was impossible for us to have this response for yo within the time you requested.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4866OpenMr. Howard 'Mac' Dashney Pupil Transportation Consultant Michigan Department of Education P.O. Box 30008 Lansing, Michigan 48909; Mr. Howard 'Mac' Dashney Pupil Transportation Consultant Michigan Department of Education P.O. Box 30008 Lansing Michigan 48909; "Dear Mr. Dashney: This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991 In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events? The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions. The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered 'schoolbuses' by this agency. A 'school bus' is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR 571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for 'buses' and also those for 'school buses.' The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses: Standards No. 101 through No. 104, Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standards No. 106 through No. 108, Standards No. 111 through 113, Standard No. 115, Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standard No. 119, Standard No. 120, Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems), Standard No. 124, Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 205, Standards No. 207 through No. 210, Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 217, Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 220, Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds), and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302. These standards are part of 49 CFR 571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS. Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR 571.3. For instance, 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation' (49 CFR 571.3(b)). 'Passenger car' is defined as ' a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less' (49 CFR 571.3(b)). Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events? Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses. Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information. I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0825OpenMr. Steven M. Sharp, Managing Director, Intercontinental Equipment Corp., 5383 Overland Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123; Mr. Steven M. Sharp Managing Director Intercontinental Equipment Corp. 5383 Overland Avenue San Diego CA 92123; Dear Mr. Sharp: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1972, in which you rais several questions concerning Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. You state that Intercontinental Equipment Corp. (I.E.C.) is the United States importer and distributer of certain vehicles manufactured by Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. in Japan. You also state that I.E.C. has contracted with Yachiyoda Sangyo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo to acquire vehicles from Suzuki, remove non-complying equipment, install approved devices, and affix necessary labels of conformity and arrange for shipment.; The answers to your questions are as follows 1. You ask whether the I.E.C. contract with Yachiyoda changes th status of Suzuki as manufacturer and I.E.C. as importer. It does not change the status with respect to our manufacturer identification and certification regulations.; 2. You inquire as to the classification of Suzuki and Yachiyoda unde Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Since Suzuki manufactures a completed vehicle, Yachiyoda is not considered a manufacturer under NHTSA regulations and is not required by the NHTSA to submit manufacturer identification or certification information.; 3. You ask whether the label of conformity (Label 2) which you propose to have affixed to the vehicles is acceptable. Th NHTSA finds it acceptable.; I enclose copies of Parts 566, 567, and 568 for your information. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Counsel |
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.