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: 77-3.14OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/28/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Collins Industries, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is applicable to all school buses or only to school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. You are correct in your statement that school buses are included in the broader classification, "buses", for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless otherwise specified in a particular standard. Safety Standard No. 301-75 is applicable to passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, including school buses under 10,000 pounds. The standard is also applicable to larger school buses, and the distinction is made in the standard since the large school buses are the only vehicles having a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds that are covered by the standard. Safety Standard No. 301-75 was made applicable to all school buses pursuant to a mandate under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(i) (1) (A)). SINCERELY, COLLINS INDUSTRIES INC. MAY 6, 1977 FRANK BERNDT ACTING CHIEF COUNCIL FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS PART 571.301-7S-1 STATES THAT SCHOOL BUSES WITH GVWR GREATER THAN 10,000 POUNDS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 6.5 OF 301. HOWEVER, SCHOOL BUSES BELOW 10,000 POUNDS GVWR ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN 301. I UNDERSTAND THAT ALL SCHOOL BUSES MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF BUSES IN GENERAL UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE IN FMVS STANDARDS. BY DEFINITION, A SCHOOL BUS IS A BUS. IS MY INTERPRETATION CORRECT ACCORDING TO NHTSA? A REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF OUR CHASSIS SUPPLIERS CALLED TO MY ATTENTION THAT ONLY THE LARGE SCHOOL BUSES (OVER 10,000 GVWR) WERE MENTIONED IN 301. HE SEEMED TO BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS COULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN SCHOOL BUSES LESS THAN 10,000 GVWR ARE NOT INCLUDED IN 301. I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY AND WILL APPRECIATE ANY INFORMATION YOU GIVE ME. JAMES M. BEACH DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING |
|
ID: nht95-3.11OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: June 13, 1995 FROM: K. Howard Sharp -- Attorney at Law, Arnason Law Office TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO K. HOWARD SHARPE (A43; STD. 108; VSA 30102) TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Safety Bright (R) product manufactured by NYTAF Industries, Inc. Your remarks provided a great deal of insight and assistance to NYTAF in the development of their product. We are a bit confused on whether NYTAF qualifies as a manufacturer and whether standard 108 would apply in this instance. NYTAF manufactures Safety Bright (R) for use as an accessory to be installed on vehicles which are already in use on the roadway s. Presently NYTAF has no plans for the installation of Safety Bright (R) equipment on new vehicles. We understand that if that were the case the new vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for certification of compliance with the motor vehicle safet y standards. We are not certain, however, whether NYTAF must certify compliance with those standards since it is simply a manufacturer of an accessory. We would appreciate your clarification on this issue. Again, thank you for your prompt response and helpful guidance. |
|
ID: nht90-1.87OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/28/90 FROM: ROBERT W. GENZMAN -- US ATTORNEY FOR MIDDLE DISTRICT FLORIDA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/9 0 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842 NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS ; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR-WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW TEXT: Robert W. Genzman, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, in conjunction with the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., announced today the filing of civil lawsuits charging six Florida corporations with violations of federal safety standards. The civil complaints allege that the named corporations installed tinted products on windows of motor vehicles in such a manner that less light was transmitted through the windows than federal safety standards permit. Named as defendants in the Orlando Division of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida are Blue Skies Projects, Inc., d/b/a Flying Window Tinters, of Orlando, and Shakespearin, Inc. of Holly Hill. Seminole Solar Systems, In c. of Largo; Allied Glass Tint, Inc. of Tampa, 3801, Inc., d/b/a Window Kote, and Solar Graphics, Inc., of St. Petersburg, were named as defendants in the Tampa Division or the Middle District of Florida. Under National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Acts standards, automobile glass must transmit at least 70 percent light through their surfaces. The civil complaints allege that the named defendants applied coated materials to the windows of motor vehicles in an amount resulting in transmission of light less than that permitted by the standard. Mr. Genzman stated that the applicable federal standards were imposed to establish minimum visibility standards and to prevent accidents. The civil complaints seek to enjoin violation of the Act, and to impose $ 800,000.00 in civil penalties. |
|
ID: nht74-3.32OpenDATE: 08/30/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Private Truck Council of America, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 25 and August 26, 1974, requesting information on NHTSA regulations applicable to regrooved tires. You ask whether companies leasing trucks to other companies may equip the trucks with regrooved tires, and what tire standards apply. The recent court decision regarding regrooved tires (NAMBO v. Volpe 483 F. 2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973), Cert. denied, -- U.S. -- (1974)) held that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act the NHTSA could permit only the sale of regrooved tires. Consequently, the leasing of regrooved tires is now prohibited, as is any other introduction of them into interstate commerce other than by a sale. The NHTSA recently amended its regrooved tire regulations to conform to this Court opinion. We do not construe the opinion to prohibit the leasing of trucks equipped with regrooved tires. The regulation applies only to the manner in which the tires themselves are obtained. The standards applicable to regrooved tires are found in the Regrooved Tire regulations (49 CFR Part 569). Regroovable tires manufactured after March 1, 1975, must also conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. |
|
ID: nht91-3.39OpenDATE: May 6, 1991 FROM: John Mayeda -- Marketing and Sales Coordinator, GRE America, Inc. TO: Department of Transportation, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Mayeda (A38; Std. 101); Also attached to letter dated 6-4-87 from Erika Z. Jones to Robert J. Heath; Also attached to letter dated 9-21-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Jim Bowen; Also attached to letter dated 1-7-88 from Erika Z. Jones to Koji Tokunaga (Std. 101) TEXT: I'm writing to you concerning any laws or regulations that governs car stereo safety. What I mean by car stereo safety; are there any regulations on car stereos - that might distract the driver, or inhibit driving performance. As in our case having a television monitor built into a car stereo (See Attached Diagram). The TV monitor in the radio will only turn on when the car is not in motion or is parked, IT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE TUREND ON WHEN THE CAR IS IN MOTION. I would like to know all the laws and regulations that govern car stereos, if there are no such regulations - What I would like from you is a written statement stating that there is no laws or regulations that govern car stereo safety (INHIBITING DRIVING PERFORMANCE). This documentation is very important for our Research and Development Department, in order for them to begin development of our prototype unit. If you have any questions, or if you need more information, please call, write, or send a facsimile to my attention at your earliest convenience.
Attachment Diagram of Car Dashboard, Steering Wheel, Car Stereo with TV Monitor (graphics omitted)
Dear Sir/Madam: I'm writing you concerning any laws or regulations that govern car stereos. Our car stereo with a built in television is being developed, and I would like to know all the governing sanctions imposed on our product. The TV monitor in the radio will only turn on when the car is not moving in traffic or is parked, it will not be able to be turned on when the car is in motion |
|
ID: 10-004510ws SavidgeOpen
Keith A. Savidge, Esq. Seeley, Savidge, Ebert & Gourash Co., LPA 26600 Detroit Road Cleveland, Ohio 44145 Dear Mr. Savidge: This responds to your letter dated June 25, 2010, asking whether the SM Series Trommels distributed by your client, Doppstadt US, are motor vehicles regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Our answer is no. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following is our interpretation of the FMVSSs based on the description in your letter. You state that the SM Series Trommels are non-self-propelled separators of forestry and other recycled products. You further state that the trommels do not move under their own power and are only periodically towed on public roads for use in other locations. Finally, you state that the majority of units remain at a single location during their entire operating lifetime. The websites of Doppstadt US, www.doppstadtus.com, and the manufacturer Doppstadt, www.doppstadt.com, indicate that the trommels are available with dual-axle or tracked chassis. These websites[1] also indicate that some of the trommels are capable of self-propelled drive but that this feature is intended only for movement at the jobsite.
The Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6)) defines a motor vehicle as: A vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it is regulated by NHTSA and must, among other things, comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Whether the agency considers your work units to be motor vehicles depends on the use of the vehicles. In past agency interpretations, we have determined that vehicles which are primarily used off-highway and which only incidentally use the highways (to move between jobsites) are not motor vehicles under the Safety Act. An example of this is mobile construction equipment which use the highway only to move between jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways, and the agency has determined that such equipment are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than incidental. In past interpretations, we have determined that certain types of trommels and other screening equipment are not motor vehicles under the Safety Act. (See enclosed copies of April 26, 1993 letter to Mr. Jeff Gerner, and December 1, 1998 letter to Mr. Thomas W. Allison.) Based upon the depictions of the SM Series Trommels from the information you provided and the relevant websites, it appears that the units are designed to be primarily used at off-road jobsites for extended periods of time, but may occasionally be towed on highways from one jobsite to another. Thus, the on-highway transport of these units appears to be merely incidental to their use on jobsites. Based on the above information, we do not believe that the SM Series Trommels are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. This determination is based on the information provided. If in fact the units are using the roads and highways more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact William Shakely of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosures |
|
ID: nht68-3.25OpenDATE: 04/22/68 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph R. O'Gorman; NHTSA TO: Badger Auto Body Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your cooperation and response to the Federal Highway Administration request regarding the "Certification Requirements." The information you have provided will be very useful to us; however, in accordance with Section 112 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, it would be appreciated if you would provide us with information as to where your tag will be located on your vehicles and also the serial identification system as requested in order that vehicles manufactured (complete) after January 1, 1968, can be identified. In regard to your question as to whether there is an exception to the law regarding the placement of the three light markers at the rear of your vehicle because of the limited space on your rear frame, the answer is there is no exception and adherence is required. One possible solution to your problem might be to mount an additional bracket to mount the cluster of lights. This is only a suggestion and you may be able to arrive at a more practical arrangement. Trusting this information answers your questions. |
|
ID: nht91-7.12OpenDATE: November 16, 1991 FROM: Woodruff Carroll -- Carroll, Carroll, Davidson, & Young TO: Kathleen DeMeter -- Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, NHTSA TITLE: Re: prior letter ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Woodruff Carroll (A39; Part 571.3; Part 567) TEXT: In reading the letters sent me additional letters of far greater importance than those given were cited in the letter. Please produce pursuant to the FIOA act the following: 1. 4/7/83 letter to mr. Takeo Shimizu attached to the 4/3/89 letter to Les Schriner (which in turn is attached hereto) 2. May 9, 1974 letter quoted on page two of the letter to Edward Green of Henke manufacturing (attached hereto) 3. July 16, 1976 letter to Jeep Corporation from Robert Carter to NHTSA quoted on page 1 of the letter to D.J. Henry 4. compliance testing in this regard (#3) 5. Manufacturers good faith categorization of parts and the standards under which they categorize them. (1/18/77 letter to Meyer products) 6. There is also a letter to you from Snoway that has not been produced. In reading these letters the following questions arise: 1. Is the attached exhibit three done correctly under the regulations in effect at that time? 2. Is a second stage manufacturer liable if he knowingly manufacturers a product that exceeds the primary manufacturers specifications but has it installed by a local body shop who is the dealer? (Is either one or both liable under these circumstances?) 3. As to question number one and two if there were foreseeable circumstances that would cause the weight to exceed the GAWR would that violate federal regulations? (such as loading the cargo area to capacity with the snowplow attached?) See question 4 to Henke 3/8/76) 4. Why is the snowplow not attached when being weighed per the 1/18/77 letter to D.J. Henry (unloaded vehicle weight) when it is operated regularly upon the highways with the snowplow attached between jobs in its ordinary use and also when not in use. Thank you for your assistance in these matter it is greatly appreciated. |
|
ID: 2627yOpen Mr. Tony Llama Dear Mr. Llama: This is in reply to your letter of June ll, l990, with respect to the allowability of a temporary importation of a vehicle from Panama that does not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Specifically, the vehicle is a "van" manufactured in the Soviet Union. Its Panamanian owner has requested that your company design and install a dual air conditioning unit for the vehicle. Once you have built and installed the unit, the van will be returned to Panama for evaluation and testing. You anticipate that the van will be in the United States for at least 90 days. After our review of this matter, we have determined that it would be appropriate for you to enter the van pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(j), under the declaration that the vehicle is being imported solely for the purpose of research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations. This declaration appears as Box 7 on the HS-7 importation form under which the vehicle will enter the United States. If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:59l d:8/2/90 |
1990 |
ID: 2631oOpen AIR MAIL Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Arisaka: This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1987, with reference to a newly developed lamp bulb "for automotive light-signalling devices." You state that the lamp has a bulb defined in SAE J387 and that its specifications for bulb and base meet those of SAE J573. The candlepower of the new lamp bulb is said to be 40% higher than that of a conventional bulb. You have asked whether you can "use the device with this new lamp bulb" in the United States. For lamps other than replaceable bulb headlamps Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 establishes requirements for photometric performance, and not for bulbs. Therefore, SAE J387 and J573 are not incorporated into Standard No. l08. Any motor vehicle turn signal or hazard warning signal device using Stanley's new high-candlepower bulb would appear to be permissible as long as it meets the applicable photometric specifications of Standard No. l08, and does not exceed any maxima of these specifications. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:l2/3l/87 |
1970 |
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.