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: aiam2645OpenMr. James Tydings, Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 1408 Courtesy Road, P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. James Tydings Specifications Engineer Thomas Built Buses Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your August 31, 1977, letter asking whether a New Yor state requirement mandating the installation of both side emergency doors and rear emergency doors in school buses would mean that both emergency doors would be required to comply with the school bus exit specifications in Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; The NHTSA has determined previously that only those exits required b S5.2.3 must meet the requirement specified for school bus emergency exits in Standard No. 217. Paragraph S5.2.3 requires either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push out window. The side emergency door to which you refer is installed in addition to a rear emergency door. The presence of the rear emergency door, alone, satisfies the requirements of S5.2.3. Therefore, a side emergency door is not required by the standard and need not meet the specifications for school bus emergency exits. Emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 must comply with regulations applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses. These requirements are also detailed in Standard No. 217.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3957OpenMr. James H. Westlake, Associate Director, American Truck Dealers Division, National Automobile Dealers Association, 8400 Westpark Drive, McLean, VA 22102; Mr. James H. Westlake Associate Director American Truck Dealers Division National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean VA 22102; Dear Mr. Westlake: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Mr. Stephe Wood of this office asking the following three questions about rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks.; >>>'1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is ou understanding that the process is considered 'rebuilding' when the three major components (engine, transmission and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from 'rebuilding' to 'first stage manufacturer'?'<<<; Neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('the Act' nor the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ('safety standards') contain the terms 'rebuilding' and 'first stage manufacturer'. Your question, however, is clear: when new and used components are used in rebuilding a heavy truck, at what point does the truck become a 'new' vehicle which must comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks.; The agency's regulation on *Combining new and used components*, 49 CF 571.7(e), provides:; >>>'When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck wil be considered newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with the safety standards and other provisions of the Act unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle'.<<<; Thus, in terms of your question, if the three major components ar reused in the rebuilding process and at least two of the three came from the same vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply even if a new cab is used. But if one of the three components is new, or if all are used and came from three different motor vehicles, then the standards apply and the truck must meet them, and be certified as meeting them, upon final assembly.; Your reference to 'first stage manufacturer' implies that there may b rebuilding fact situations in which the process is completed by a person other than the manufacturer who initiated it. If the rebuilt truck is 'new', then its assemblers are subject to 49 CFR Part 568 *Vehicle (sic) Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. If the truck meets the definition of 'incomplete vehicle', then the 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' is required to furnish the specified compliance information necessary for certification to the 'intermediate stage manufacturer' or the 'final stage manufacturer' as the case may be (sec. 568.3).; >>>'2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classifie as 'new manufacturing' what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?'<<<; As indicated above, the truck must be completed to comply with al safety standards that apply to trucks and be certified by its assembler as so conforming in accordance with Part 567 *Certification*. If more than one party is involved in the remanufacturing process, each party is subject to Part 568. In addition, any party remanufacturing a truck that must be certified as conforming is required to file a statement in the form prescribed by Part 566 *Manufacturer Identification*.; >>>'3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these Federa regulations?'<<<; As provided by section 109(a) of the act, any person violating an provision of the Act or a regulation issued thereunder is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, under Section 110(a) of the Act, the agency may seek to restrain the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any rebuilt truck that should have met Federal motor vehicle safety standards but in fact did not do so. Also, section 154 of the Act requires manufacturers to conduct recall campaigns and remedy any non-compliances with applicable safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0228OpenMr. Jackson Decker, Chief, Product Engineer, E. E. Etnyre and Company, 200 Jefferson Street, Oregon, IL 61061; Mr. Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer E. E. Etnyre and Company 200 Jefferson Street Oregon IL 61061; Dear Mr. Decker: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1970, to the Director Office of Performance Analysis, now changed to the Office of Compliance, in which you pose the following question: 'In the case of a body mounted on a chassis- cab which chassis-cab has had previous service as a completed vehicle, is it permissible to omit certification as required under Part 367, 49 C.F.R., since it is beyond the knowledge of the body manufacturer to ascertain compliance with the pertinent chassis-cab standards? The vehicle manufacturer will perform his work in compliance with current standards insofar as practicable.'; The answer to your question is yes. At this time it is permissible t omit certification in the case you have described in your question, since the motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to domestic used vehicles. In the event, however, that you use an item of automotive equipment for which there is an applicable standard, such as glazing material, you are required to certify in accordance with Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as it applies to items of motor vehicle equipment.; Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Thank you fo your letter and your interest in the programs of the National Highway Safety Bureau.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2215OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA, 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1976, asking whethe S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows a flashing side marker lamp 'in any location on the side of a motor vehicle without having to comply with State law pertaining to side-mounted turn signals.'; S4.6(b) allows side marker lamps to flash for signalling purposes Since a flashing side marker lamp is in essence a side turn signal lamp, any State regulation specifically addressed to location and flash rate of side turn signals would appear to be preempted by Standard No. 108, if the side marker lamp is combined with a side turn signal lamp. If the side turn signal lamp is a separate lamp, then it would be subject to State regulation.; Your inquirer wishes to install 'a side marker lamp on each side nea the middle of the trailer to flash with the turn signal lamps.' If the lamp to be added is not the intermediate side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108 for trailers whose length is 30 feet or more, it would be governed by the California Vehicle Code and not preempted.; We intend to address the issues of side mounted turn signal lamps flashing side marker lamps, and flashing headlamps in a rulemaking proposal whose publication is imminent, and I will include your letter in the Docket as a comment to be considered.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4512OpenMr. Michael Rose Technical Secretary for Executive Director Jamaica Bureau of Standards 6 Winchester Road Kingston l0 JAMAICA; Mr. Michael Rose Technical Secretary for Executive Director Jamaica Bureau of Standards 6 Winchester Road Kingston l0 JAMAICA; Dear Mr. Rose: This responds to your letter, addressed to the Directo of the Office of the Federal Register, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Federal agency which issued and administers that standard. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l38l et seq. The term 'motor vehicle safety standard' is defined by the Act as 'a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria' (section l02(2)). NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, section ll4 of the Act requires manufacturers to certify compliance of each motor vehicle and item of equipment with all applicable standards. The Act requires that manufacturers exercise 'due care' to ensure that their products conform to each applicable standard (section 108(b)(l)). I will address your first two questions together. The questions are: l. In the clause dealing with Test Sample, why are the batch size and sample size not mentioned? 2. Why does the standard make no reference to the frequency of testing. As indicated above, Standard No. 109 is a minimum performance standard. All tires must be capable of meeting the standard's requirements. The purpose of the test sample paragraph (S4.2.2.l) in Standard No. 109 is to indicate that a test set for a compliance test consists of three tires. One tire is checked for physical dimensions and is then subjected to resistance to bead unseating and strength, in sequence. The second tire is subjected to the endurance test, and the third tire is subjected to the high speed test. Paragraph S4.2.2.l is not intended to address the question of how many sets of tires a manufacturer should test as a surveillance procedure during production or what batch size the test sets should be drawn from. A manufacturer is not required to conduct any particular frequency of testing or even to run the actual tests specified by Standard No. 109. Instead, a manufacturer must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that each of its tires, if tested according to the requirements of the standard, would meet those requirements. (For test purposes, however, any one given tire would only be subjected to one of the three test sequences discussed above.) Since Standard No. 109 includes a number of specific test requirements, it is likely that a manufacturer would find it necessary to do some testing in order to ensure that a tire complied with the standard. For enforcement purposes, NHTSA would test a tire according to the specific test requirements of Standard No. 109. Your third question is as follows: 3. Why does the standard make no reference to tolerances for tyre concentricity? NHTSA's standards cover aspects of performance for which the agency has determined there is a safety need. To date, NHTSA has not determined that there is a need for requirements covering tire concentricity tolerances. We note that tire concentricity appears to be primarily an issue of occupant comfort rather than safety. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0802OpenMr. Rex A. Williams, Ryder System, Incorporated, Post Office Box 816, 2701 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, FL 33133; Mr. Rex A. Williams Ryder System Incorporated Post Office Box 816 2701 South Bayshore Drive Miami FL 33133; Dear Mr. Williams: This is in response to your letter of July 20, 1972, concernin regulations governing the mounting of truck bodies and fifth wheels. Persons who perform these operations on new vehicles are generally considered to be final-stage manufacturers under NHTSA regulations and are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The requirements for certification are codified at Title 49, Code o Federal Regulations, Parts 567, 568. Copies of these and other NHTSA requirements are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. The material should be ordered under the title, *Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards*. The cost, which must be prepaid, is $8.00, which includes amendments for one year. Checks should be payable to the Superintendent of Documents. Regulations regarding the Certification of completed motor vehicles are found at Parts 567 and 568 of the volume.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1710OpenHonorable Thomas N. Downing, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Thomas N. Downing House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Downing: This is in response to your letter of November 25, 1974, requestin this agency's comments on correspondence from one of your constituents, Ms. Cathy Alligood, concerning Federal regulations regulating bumper height and tire location.; The NHTSA has promulgated no standards regulating the protrusion o tires outside of the vehicle fenders. There may, however, be a State requirement pertaining to this aspect of performance.; A standard does exist that relates to motor vehicle bumper systems (4 CFR Part 571.215, *Exterior Protection*). According to that standard all vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1973, must possess bumpers which meet a certain level of performance. One aspect of the standard assures a uniform bumper height since the vehicle must be capable of sustaining pendulum impacts (during compliance testing) at certain heights while incurring only limited damage. Bumpers which are located at heights above or below a certain level would not be capable of satisfying these specified damage criteria. We have determined that uniform bumper heights are an essential element to motor vehicle safety.; Responding to the issue raised by Ms. Alligood concerning th alteration of bumper heights, such alteration could occur if the vehicle was not thereby brought out of compliance with the bumper standard. If the alteration of the bumper height caused the vehicle no longer to comply with the standard and such alteration was accomplished by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or a motor vehicle repair business, a violation of S 108(a) (2) (A) would have occurred. If, however, the alteration was done after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale by someone other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, no violation would have occurred.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2995OpenMr. C. J. Goode, Chief Engineer, Leyland Cars, P.O. Box 2, Meteor Works, Lode Lane, Solihull, West Midlands B92 8NW, England; Mr. C. J. Goode Chief Engineer Leyland Cars P.O. Box 2 Meteor Works Lode Lane Solihull West Midlands B92 8NW England; Dear Mr. Goode:#I regret the delay in responding to your July 17, 1978 letter petitioning for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. You requested that the standard be amended to add three ISO symbols so that British Leyland could adopt common specifications in satisfaction of both FMVSS 101-80 and EEC directive 78/316. Your petition is in effect granted in part and is denied in part.#You asked that the ISO symbol (an illuminated light bulb) for the Master Lighting Switch be either substituted for Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol (an illuminated headlamp) specified in Table 1 of FMVSS 101-80 or added as an option to that specified symbol. This aspect of your petition is denied. If a vehicle contains a master lighting control in addition to a headlamp and tail lamp control, the Master Lighting Switch symbol may be used for the master lighting control. We recognize, however, that most vehicles presently sold in this country have one control that operates all lights, including the headlamps and tail lamps. On vehicles having one control for all lights, the control must be identified by the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol. We believe that this is appropriate since the headlamps and tail lamps are the most important lights controlled by a master light control. Further, we believe that the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol is more easily recognized than the Master Lighting Switch symbol.#You also asked that the ISO symbol for the Manual Choke be added to Table 1 and the ISO symbol for the Brake System be added to Table 2. No amendment of the standard is necessary to permit your use of these two symbols since FMVSS 101-80 does not specify any requirements regarding symbols for those items. Amendment of the standard to require the use of those symbols would require a new proposal to be issued since such an amendment would be beyond the scope of the October 12, 1976, proposal which led to the June 26, 1978 final rule. Treating this part of your petition as a petition for rulemaking instead of a petition for reconsideration, we grant it. It should be understood that granting the petition does not necessarily mean that an amendment will ultimately be adopted.#Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; |
|
ID: aiam3687OpenMr. J. N. Uranga, Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Box 3005, Columbus, IN 47201; Mr. J. N. Uranga Cummins Engine Company Inc. Box 3005 Columbus IN 47201; Dear Mr. Uranga: This is in further response to your January 28, 1983, letter in whic you asked about the defect reporting requirements in Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*. We responded by letter to you on March 24 indicating that as an original equipment manufacturer you might have some reporting responsibilities if a component of your original equipment was found to be defective.; In a conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff, you have indicate that you manufacture the engine of a certain vehicle and another manufacturer produces the fan. Both pieces of equipment are then sent to the vehicle manufacturer for assembly with the vehicle. In this instance, you ask whether you would have reporting responsibilities if the fan were determined to be defective. The answer to your question is no.; In the situation that you pose, you do not install the fan on you equipment nor does the fan ever come within your control. Therefore, you would not have responsibility for that part. The fan manufacturer and the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for any defects in that equipment. In instances where you might install a fan on your equipment prior to sale to the vehicle manufacturer, you might have reporting responsibilities if a defect is discovered in that part, since the part would be a component of the overall engine that you supplied to the vehicle manufacturer.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4142OpenFrederick Goldfeder, Esq., Legal Proceedings Bureau, New York Department of Transportation, Albany, New York 12232; Frederick Goldfeder Esq. Legal Proceedings Bureau New York Department of Transportation Albany New York 12232; Dear Mr. Goldfeder: This responds to your January 28, 1986 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the definition of 'truck' set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.3 of our regulations. You asked whether manufacturers may certify 'passenger vans,' which have seating capacities of more than 10 persons, as trucks.; By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) and NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), the classification of a motor vehicle is determined by its manufacturer. Part 567 requires manufacturers to certify that their motor vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, and classify their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in Part 571.3 of our regulations. The agency may, of course, question a manufacturer's classification of its vehicle if it appears that the vehicle has not been properly certified under our regulations. This would generally arise in the context of compliance or enforcement proceedings.; We define a 'truck' in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle ... designe primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' Based on the information in your letter, it does not appear that the vans meet that definition, given their passenger capacities. Our regulatory definition of a truck would be only appropriate for vehicles designed primarily for transporting property or equipment, which does not appear to be the case for the vans you described.; The situation you described appears to raise question of complianc with Federal law by the persons certifying the vehicles. We are interested in learning more about the sale of the vans, and would appreciate your contacting NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with any information you may have, at the address given above.; Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of furthe assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief 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.