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: 18026a.drnOpenFrederick W. Rentschler, President Dear Mr. Rentschler: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a dealer may sell a new van that seats fewer than 11 persons to a school, for use in transporting school children. Such a van is a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) under our regulations. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not prohibit a dealer from selling a new MPV for such a purpose. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Any person selling a new vehicle must sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is a vehicle that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying school children to or from school or related events (49 C.F.R. 571.3). Because any new "bus" that is sold for pupil transportation purposes is a "school bus," the school bus standards apply, and any person selling such a vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting our school bus standards. We do not require, however, that only school buses can be sold for pupil transportation. Under our regulations, a van that seats fewer than 11 persons is an "MPV," which is defined in 571.3 as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." An MPV is a different type of vehicle than a bus or a school bus, and must meet safety standards that apply to MPVs. Dealers selling new MPVs must be sure to sell vehicles that have been certified to the MPV standards. Manufacturers may voluntarily manufacture MPVs to meet school bus standards on aspects of performance that do not conflict with MPV standards, such as emergency exits, joint strength, and roof crush. Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles for pupil transportation, including MPVs or school buses. NHTSA has issued guidelines for States to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), to provide recommendations on various operational aspects of State school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Each State determines the extent to which it adopts the recommendations in Guideline 17. For information on Pennsylvania's requirements on transportation of school children, please contact Pennsylvania's State Director of Pupil Transportation: Ms. Pamela Thomas Ms. Thomas' phone number is: (717) 772-2117. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, ref: VSA102(14)#Part 571.3, "multipurpose passenger vehicle"# Part 571.3 "school bus only" |
1998 |
ID: nht95-4.50OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 10, 1995 FROM: Edward Mansell -- Chief Engineer, Polar Tank Trailer, Inc. TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/1/95 LETTER FROM Sanuel J. Dubbin to Edward Mansell (Redbook 2; Std. 108) TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht, We are requesting and interpretation of the language included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, paragraph S5.7 Conspicuit Systems. The NHTSA has made it clear that the exact location and configuration of conspicuity sheeting is subject to variation based on the practicability of installation. Our request involves the practicability of installation of conspicuity sheeting on the rea r of some Food Grade Tank Trailers (FGTTs). Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) calls for sheeting to be placed across the full width of the trailer as close as practicable to 1.25 meters above the road surface. For many tank trailers the rear bumper, located approximately 0.5 m above the road surface, is th e closest practicable location for installation of conspicuity sheeting. For some FGTTs, however, rear-mounted load/unload ports, pumps and valves are located directly above the center portion of the rear bumper. Conspicuity sheeting affixed to a bumper under the load/unload ports is subjected to repeat exposure to hot water as run off from wash downs cascades over the sheeting. Typically this area is washed at least once per day with water up to 200 degrees F. This repeated exposure to hot water degrades the conspicuity sheeting. Modes of failure include: loss of red coloring; delamination; loss of brightness; bubbling; cracking; and loss of adhesion. The deleterious effects of this exposure is evident regar dless of the manufacturer of the sheeting. Analysis shows that sheeting applied to the rear of trailers with designs which do not result in the cascade of hot water over the sheeting do not experience these problems. P2 We interpret paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) to allow, that since installation of sheeting in a location subject to frequent hot water run off is not practicable, in the case of FGTTs with designs which results in water cascading from the load/unload area over t he center fo the rear bumper, the sheeting may be applied from the extreme ends of the bumper to points no more than 6 inches (150mm) to the left or right of the area directly below the load/unload area. Further, for FGTTs which use a cabinet to enclose the load/unload area, conspicuity sheeting should be mounted on the cabinet doors to augment the sheeting on the bumper. Otherwise, the center section of the sheeting should be located on the tank, above the load/unload area. We believe that this proposal meets the intent of Standard 108 by delineating the rear of FGTTs without requiring manufacturers to redesign trailers to redirect the flow of wash water. We look forward to your interpretation of the Standard and await you r reply. |
|
ID: nht95-7.16OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 10, 1995 FROM: Edward Mansell -- Chief Engineer, Polar Tank Trailer, Inc. TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/1/95 LETTER FROM Sanuel J. Dubbin to Edward Mansell (Redbook 2; Std. 108) TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht, We are requesting and interpretation of the language included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, paragraph S5.7 Conspicuit Systems. The NHTSA has made it clear that the exact location and configuration of conspicuity sheeting is subject to variation based on the practicability of installation. Our request involves the practicability of installation of conspicuity sheeting on the rear of some Food Grade Tank Trailers (FGTTs). Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) calls for sheeting to be placed across the full width of the trailer as close as practicable to 1.25 meters above the road surface. For many tank trailers the rear bumper, located approximately 0.5 m above the road surface, is the closest practicable location for installation of conspicuity sheeting. For some FGTTs, however, rear-mounted load/unload ports, pumps and valves are located directly above the center portion of the rear bumper. Conspicuity sheeting affixed to a bumper under the load/unload ports is subjected to repeat exposure to hot water as run off from wash downs cascades over the sheeting. Typically this area is washed at least once per day with water up to 200 degrees F. This repeated exposure to hot water degrades the conspicuity sheeting. Modes of failure include: loss of red coloring; delamination; loss of brightness; bubbling; cracking; and loss of adhesion. The deleterious effects of this exposure is evident regardless of the manufacturer of the sheeting. Analysis shows that sheeting applied to the rear of trailers with designs which do not result in the cascade of hot water over the sheeting do not experience these problems. P2 We interpret paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) to allow, that since installation of sheeting in a location subject to frequent hot water run off is not practicable, in the case of FGTTs with designs which results in water cascading from the load/unload area over the center fo the rear bumper, the sheeting may be applied from the extreme ends of the bumper to points no more than 6 inches (150mm) to the left or right of the area directly below the load/unload area. Further, for FGTTs which use a cabinet to enclose the load/unload area, conspicuity sheeting should be mounted on the cabinet doors to augment the sheeting on the bumper. Otherwise, the center section of the sheeting should be located on the tank, above the load/unload area. We believe that this proposal meets the intent of Standard 108 by delineating the rear of FGTTs without requiring manufacturers to redesign trailers to redirect the flow of wash water. We look forward to your interpretation of the Standard and await your reply. |
|
ID: aiam2837OpenMr. George C. Nield, President, Automobile Importers of America, 900 17th Street, N.W. Suite 100, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. George C. Nield President Automobile Importers of America 900 17th Street N.W. Suite 100 Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Nield: This responds to your recent letter asking whether passive safety belt are exempt from the requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*.; The answer to your question is yes, with one exception. Paragrap S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, specifies that passive safety belts that are not required for the vehicle to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of the standard must meet the requirements of Standard No. 209. Therefore, only passive belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 209.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2838OpenMr. George C. Nield, President, Automobile Importers of America, 900 17th Street, N.W. Suite 100, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. George C. Nield President Automobile Importers of America 900 17th Street N.W. Suite 100 Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Nield: This responds to your recent letter asking whether passive safety belt are exempt from the requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*.; The answer to your question is yes, with one exception. Paragrap S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, specifies that passive safety belts that are not required for the vehicle to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of the standard must meet the requirements of Standard No. 209. Therefore, only passive belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 209.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2178OpenMr. John Evans, Wenke, Burge, and Taylor, 1055 N. Main St., Suite 801, Santa Ana, CA 92701; Mr. John Evans Wenke Burge and Taylor 1055 N. Main St. Suite 801 Santa Ana CA 92701; Dear Mr. Evans: I am writing in response to questions you raised in a January 7, 1976 telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the determinations of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for a boat trailer.; >>>GVWR is defined as: the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of single vehicle. (49 CFR 571.3).<<<; One constraint on this specification is found in the Certificatio regulation, which requires that the GVWR be; >>>not less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated carg load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity ... . (49 CFR 567.4(g)(3))<<<; 'Rated cargo load' is not defined. If a manufacturer does not provide cargo load rating to dealers or consumers, the NHTSA expects his determination of GVWR to reflect a good faith evaluation of the vehicle's load carrying capacity. In the case of a boat trailer, this evaluation should be made with the assumption that the trailer is attached to a towing vehicle and should include that portion of the trailer's load that is carried by the towing vehicle.; >>>GAWR, on the other hand, is defined as: the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load varyin capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.<<<; The GAWR of a boat trailer's axle system could thus be less than th GVWR, because some of the trailer's load would be carried by the towing vehicle. However, the NHTSA would consider a boat trailer with a GAWR that is less than the actual load on its axle system, when loaded to its GVWR and attached to a towing vehicle, to contain a safety-related defect, which is subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; The NHTSA expects to issue, in the near future, Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire and rim selection for vehicles other than passenger cars* (49 CFR 571.120). Until the effective date of that standard, however, we will continue to consider a vehicle with tires insufficient for its gross axle weight ratings to contain a safety-related defect.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2241OpenHonorable Richard Nolan, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Richard Nolan House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Nolan: This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1976, in which you as six questions pertaining to tire identification and recordkeeping, and to defects notification and recall. The statutory basis for and regulations governing this subject are set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 574. I have enclosed copies for your reference. Specific answers to your questions follow in the sequence asked:; >>>1. Manufacturers are required to retain tire registratio information for three years. (49 CFR 574. 7(d)).; 2. As in all defect recall campaigns under our Act, the tir manufacturer, not the Department of Transportation, traces and notifies individuals of defective tires. There have been approximately 2,526,480 tires subject to recall in 119 recall campaigns.; 3. The number of persons employed by industry to process thi information has not been reported, but the filing systems are highly automated by the use of computer processing techniques. The cost of storage of this information during the three-year period is minimal. The recording of information at the time of purchase, however, is manually performed at the retail level, usually by the salesman, and has been estimated by dealers to cost anywhere from 5 or 10 cents per tire up to $2.50 per tire. The substantial difference in cost estimates is to a large part due to whether or not one assumes the salesman who completes the forms and the clerk who mails them would not be employed but for the tire registration process. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) takes the position, which has yet to be refuted, that additional personnel are not needed to carry out the program on the retail level and consequently the costis (sic) at the lower end of the scale. Simplification of the process has been achieved with the adoption of a standardized report form on which towrite (sic) the name and address of the purchaser. A copy is enclosed.; 4. There is no cost incurred by the Federal government attributable t the tire registraion (sic) and recordkeeping procedure except indirectly in that the regular staff, as one of their functions, assigns and maintains a manufacturer's identification code list and monitors the program of defects recalls and regulation enforcement. The cost of this work has been determined to be about $34,000 annually.; 5. The NHTSA has undertaken no prosecution of dealers or manufacturer for violation of the tire information and recordkeeping regulation. Fourteen civil penalties have been assessed for violation of the regulation, although these all occurred shortly after the regulation became effective.; 6. We do not presently anticipate a major revision of the regulation However, as with allour (sic) standards and regulations, it is regularly reviewed and revised to increase its effectiveness while lowering its cost to the industry and the consumer. Further, dealers, manufacturers, and others are free at any time to petition the NHTSA to amendthe (sic) regulations. These procedures, which are found in 49 CFR, Part 552, require that we act on petitions within 120 days.; At the present time, this program is also being analyzed by th National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council as part of its study of 'Safety Defects and Recalls' requested by Secretary William T. Coleman. The Council's report will also guide us in revising and improving the regulation.<<<; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: 20161.ztvOpenMr. Ron Woodward, P.E. Dear Mr. Woodward: This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1999, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. S7.8.2.1(c) of Standard No. 108 states that:
Paragraph S7.8.5.2 requires each headlamp system that is capable of being aimed by equipment installed on the vehicle to include a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) that conforms to the remainder of the paragraph. Paragraph S7.8.5.2(a)(2)(iv)requires that the horizontal indicator of a horizontal adjustment mechanism of a VHAD
You ask for
You give as an example a lamp that has a +/- 1 degree of horizontal travel. You are asking for an interpretation that a system that adjusts a headlamp horizontally but which differs from the specifications of S7.8.5.2 is not a "horizontal adjustment system" within the meaning of S7.8.2.1(c). We cannot provide the interpretation you seek. You admit that the headlamp is not fixed but is adjustable horizontally up to +/- 1 degree. As you note, "[t]he standard . . . states that the only acceptable type of horizontal adjuster is a horizontal adjuster which conforms to the horizontal VHAD requirements contained in the standard." Standard No. 108 is quite clear on this point: a manufacturer need not provide a horizontal adjustment mechanism on a headlamp that is visually/optically aimable and has a lower beam. But if the manufacturer chooses to provide a mechanism that adjusts the headlamp, it must meet all requirements of S7.8.5.2 including the +/-2.5 degree specification, even if the headlamp itself is designed for only +/- 1 degree of horizontal travel. Because we cannot concur with your desired interpretation, we are treating this matter as a petition for rulemaking in accordance with your request. We have forwarded your letter to the Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards who will respond to your petition. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: aiam3885OpenMr. Binichi Doi, NSK Representative Office, 3861 Research Park Drive, P.O. Box 1507, Ann Arbor, MI 48106; Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office 3861 Research Park Drive P.O. Box 1507 Ann Arbor MI 48106; Dear Mr. Doi: This responds to your letter of December 21, 1984, concerning severa questions about Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*.; In all of your questions, you in essence asked whether automatic safet belts are required to meet the marking requirements of section 4.1(j) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that automatic belts complying with the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not required to meet the marking requirements of Standard No. 209.; As explained in detail in the enclosed agency interpretation letter o August 7, 1981, to Volkswagen, automatic safety belts that meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of section S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are only required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 that are incorporated by reference in section S7.1 of Standard No. 208. Section S7.1 of Standard No. 208 only incorporates provisions directly related to retractor performance and does not incorporate the marking requirements of S4.1(j) of Standard No. 209.; If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 3297yyOpen Thomas A. Gerke, Esq. Dear Mr. Gerke: This responds to your December 23, 1991 letter concerning Safety Standard 107, Reflecting Surfaces. You asked us to confirm the interpretation of the standard set forth in my September 3, 1991 letter to Mr. Thomas Steinhagen. The interpretation is correct. My letter to Mr. Steinhagen was about the applicability of Standard 107 to a replacement windshield wiper arm and blade, a type of motor vehicle equipment that your client, Rally Manufacturing, seeks to sell. You state that Rally ceased producing certain windshield wiper arms and blades after NHTSA's Enforcement office notified Rally that it appeared the products did not meet the requirements of Standard 107. My letter to Mr. Steinhagen clarified the requirements of Standard 107 and the Vehicle Safety Act. I emphasized the following points in the letter: 1. Standard 107 applies to new motor vehicles, and not to items of motor vehicle equipment, such as a replacement wiper arm and blade. Replacement wiper arms and blades may be sold to consumers without violating Federal law, even if the component does not conform to the requirements of Standard 107. 2. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If a person in the aforementioned categories installed a wiper arm and blade that did not conform to the requirements of Standard 107, the person would violate 108(a)(2)(A). 3. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. 4. Regardless of whether Standard 107 applies to the replacement arm and blade, the device is subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists either in an arm and blade that conforms to Standard 107 or in one that does not, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. In your letter, you specifically ask about the sale of a replacement wiper blade "by a wholesaler/distributor to retail stores and other similar customers without any installation service by the wholesaler/distributor." The sale is not prohibited by Standard 107 or 108(a)(2)(A). However, the retail store or "other similar customer" would be considered a dealer under 102(7) of the Safety Act, and thus subject to the "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A). While the dealer may sell the replacement blade, the dealer would be prohibited from installing it on a motor vehicle. I regret any confusion resulting from NHTSA's letters to your client. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:107#VSA d:2/3/92 |
1992 |
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.