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: aiam3369OpenMr. Stephen E. Mulligan, International Harvester, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Il 60611; Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan International Harvester 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago Il 60611; Dear Mr. Mulligan: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1980, in which you as whether compliance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, will satisfy the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115.; Section 4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 require that the vehicle identification number (VIN) 'appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part.' S4.3.1 requires each character to appear in a capital, sans serif typeface. In the case of passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, each character must have a minimum height of 4 mm. S4.4 specifies that the VIN for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR shall be located within to passenger compartment.; Section 567.4 of Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), requires tha the certification label be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and display the vehicle identification number. Consequently, for all vehicles except passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, compliance with S 567.4 of Part 567 would also effect compliance with S4.3 of Standard No. 115 so long as capital, sans serif typeface was used.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3372OpenMr. Stephen E. Mulligan, International Harvester, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan International Harvester 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60611; Dear Mr. Mulligan: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1980, in which you as whether compliance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, will satisfy the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115.; Section 4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 require that the vehicle identification number (VIN) 'appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part.' S4.3.1 requires each character to appear in a capital, sans serif typeface. In the case of passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, each character must have a minimum height of 4 mm. S4.4 specifies that the VIN for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR shall be located within the passenger compartment.; Section 567.4 of Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), requires tha the certification label be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and display the vehicle identification number. Consequently, for all vehicles except passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, compliance with S 567.4 of Part 567 would also effect compliance with S4.3 of Standard No. 115 so long as capital, sans serif typeface was used.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4894OpenMr. Ivan Lee Deputy General Manager Regulation Affairs Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108; Mr. Ivan Lee Deputy General Manager Regulation Affairs Hyundai America Technical Center Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor Michigan 48108; "Dear Mr. Lee: This responds to your letter of June 17, 1991 concernin an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that Hyundai would like to have the following percentage of its passenger cars meet the dynamic performance requirements of the standard in each applicable year: 1994 model year -- 20 percent 1995 model year -- 20 percent 1996 model year -- 50 percent 1997 model year -- 100 percent You ask whether this compliance schedule is acceptable. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the requirements of Standard No. 214. The new dynamic test requirements of Standard No. 214 are phased in over a three-year period, beginning on September 1, 1993. The October 30, 1990 final rule established two alternative compliance schedules. Each manufacturer must comply with either alternative, at its discretion. Under the first schedule, each manufacturer will have to meet the new side impact performance requirements based on the following phase-in schedule: 10 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l993, 25 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l994, 40 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l995, and All automobiles it manufactures on or after September l, l996. To accommodate variation in the numbers of vehicles manufactured each year, the standard also permits these percentages to be applied to a three-year average annual production rather than to a single year's production. See section S8 of Standard No. 214. Under the second schedule, no compliance will be required during the production year beginning September 1, l993, but full implementation will be required effective September 1, l994. The compliance schedule you suggest would not appear to comply with either alternative. Since your suggested schedule does not achieve full implementation until the 1997 model year, it clearly does not comply with the second schedule. Under the first schedule, for passenger cars manufactured between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995, the number of passenger cars complying with the dynamic performance requirements must not be less than 25 percent of (a) the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September l, l99l, and before September l, l994, by each manufacturer, or (b) the manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995. See sections S3(c) and S8.2 of Standard No. 214. However, under the compliance schedule you suggest, only 20 percent of Hyundai's vehicles would meet the requirements during the 1995 model year. (I assume that, by 1995 model year, you mean the period from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995. The rule refers to time periods, rather than to model years.) The agency has received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule requesting that the agency allow use of 'carry-forward credits' during the phase-in of the dynamic test requirements. Such an approach could allow a compliance schedule like the one you suggested. The agency response to the petition will address the issue raised in your letter. The agency response is expected to be published in the Federal Register later this summer. Please review the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration when it is published. If you believe that you need further clarification, please contact us again. I hope that this information has been useful. If there are any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1203OpenMr. C.W. Todd, Market Supervisor, Fluids, Emulsions and Compounds, Dow Corning Corporation, Midland, Michigan 48640; Mr. C.W. Todd Market Supervisor Fluids Emulsions and Compounds Dow Corning Corporation Midland Michigan 48640; Dear Mr. Todd: This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1973, asking if there is conflict between S5.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a and S5.2.1 of Standard No. 116.; There is no conflict. S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105a requires a label t be affixed to a new motor vehicle with the warning to use brake fluid from a sealed container. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 116 requires containers to be provided with resealable closures. A container with a resealable closure is 'sealed' within the meaning of S5.4.3 if it is resealed after initial opening.; I enclose copies of both notices as they appeared in the *Federa Register*.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5191OpenMr. Lanny Kness Coach Design Engineer Chance Coach, Inc. 4219 Irving, Box 12328 Wichita, KS 67277-2328; Mr. Lanny Kness Coach Design Engineer Chance Coach Inc. 4219 Irving Box 12328 Wichita KS 67277-2328; "Dear Mr. Kness: This responds to your request for an interpretation o two sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays (49 CFR 571.101). You ask whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. As explained below, the answer is no. You also ask whether S5.3's illumination requirements can be met by two different means: reflected light, and an overhead light. The answer is no. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Your first question asks whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. S5.1 specifies location requirements for each control listed in S5.1 'that is furnished.' S5.1 does not require manufacturers to furnish any control, such as a hand-operated turn signal control, or prohibit manufacturers from providing an unlisted control, such as a foot-operated turn signal control. While FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108) specifies the 'turn signal operating unit' as required equipment, it does not specify that the unit be hand operated. (See S5.1.1 and Table I of FMVSS No. 108.) Your second question asks whether the following proposed method of illuminating the windshield wiper/washer control complies with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101. You state that the wiper/washer control is located on the dashboard and at night, the 'control knob's identification' can be barely seen from indirect lighting coming from other controls and displays. The wiper washer control would become 'very discernible' by turning on an 'overhead driver's controlled light.' For the following reasons, the above described method of illuminating the wiper/washer control would not comply with Standard No. 101. S5.3.3(a) requires means to be provided to make controls visible to the driver under all driving conditions. S5.3.3(b) states that 'the means' (emphasis added) for providing the required visibility: (1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in S5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions. S5.3.3(b) therefore requires that a single control (i.e., 'the means') be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness. Under your proposal, however, two different means must be used to provide two levels of brightness. The overhead driver's light would provide one level of brightness, that makes the control 'very discernible.' The other level of brightness (one barely discernible to the driver) is provided from reflected light given off by other controls and displays located on the dashboard. Since no single 'means' that you propose for illumination would be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, your proposal would not comply with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0128OpenMr. H.F. Barr, Vice President, General Motors Engineering Staff, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, Michigan 48090; Mr. H.F. Barr Vice President General Motors Engineering Staff General Motors Technical Center Warren Michigan 48090; Dear Mr. Barr: This will acknowledge your letter of October 23, 1968, requesting th addition of the 5-inch alternative rim size for use with the 155-13/6.15-13 tire size designation.; In your request you cited a letter from the German Rubber Industr stating that 'for passenger car tires in addition to the rim specified in the German Industrial Standards (DIN) also the use of the next large size rims is permissible.' The subject of the foot note in the German standard was discussed by my staff in conversations with Mr. Von Polhemus. When the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were written, it was the intent to accept the German Industrial Standards (DIN) of 1967 for all tire and rim combinations listed based on established usage. We did not intend to apply foot notes from any 1967 reference materials to the present or future tire and rim combinations.; However, on the basis of the data submitted indicating compliance wit the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 and other information submitted in accordance with the procedural guidelines set forth in the *Federal Register,* Volume 33, No. 195, page 14969, dated october 5, 1963, the 5J alternative rim size for the 155-13/6.15-13 tire size designation will be listed within Table I of Appendix A to Standard No. 110. This change will be published in the *Federal Register* in the near future.; The addition on this new alternative rim size to the table i accomplished through an abbreviated procedure consisting of the publication in the Federal Register of the petitioned alternative rim size. If no comments are received, the amendment becomes effective after 30 days from the date of publication. If comments objecting to amendments are received, additional rule making pursuant to Part 216 of Procedural Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will be considered.; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5158OpenMr. Scott R. Dennison Vice-President - Production Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 South 108th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214; Mr. Scott R. Dennison Vice-President - Production Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 South 108th Street Milwaukee WI 53214; Dear Mr. Dennison: Robert Hellmuth, Director of the Office of Vehicl Safety Compliance, has asked us to respond to your FAX of March 12, 1993. You offer your input and assistance 'regarding the alleged debate over the treatment of vehicles replicating pre-safety standard vehicle designs and their compliance with current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.' We are unsure what you mean by 'debate.' Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, all new motor vehicles, including replica vehicles, must conform to the Safety Standards unless exempted by the Administrator from one or more of those standards pursuant to 49 CFR Part 555. This regulation has been in effect since l972, and is intended to assist temporarily those manufacturers whose products may differ from those of conventional motor vehicles. I should note that the predecessor owners of Excalibur have been able to certify compliance of this replica vehicle since 1972 with all Safety Standards without seeking a temporary exemption from them. However, the Safety Standards do not cover a vehicle in use. Occasionally, situations arise in which a vehicle is newly manufactured, but contains a substantial number of parts from a vehicle previously in use. In these instances the question arises whether the vehicle may be considered 'new' and required to comply with the Safety Standards, or one that may be regarded as having been a vehicle in use for which compliance is not required. Perhaps this is the 'debate' to which you refer. We handle these situations according to the facts of each. If you wish to offer further comments, we would be pleased to consider them. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
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: aiam3891OpenMs. Phyllis A. Sirine, Administrative Secretary, St. Peter's School, 319 Lombard Street, Philadelphia, PA 19147; Ms. Phyllis A. Sirine Administrative Secretary St. Peter's School 319 Lombard Street Philadelphia PA 19147; Dear Ms. Sirine: This responds to your letter to me concerning your use of 13 and 1 passenger vans to transport students to and from extracurricular activities. In a telephone call on January 30, 1985, Mr. John Womack explained how our school bus regulations affect your school's choice of buses. This letter follows up on that conversation and confirms Mr. Womack's discussion of our regulations.; As I understand it, Pennsylvania has recently amended its law to defin 'bus' to mean 'a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons, including the driver.' The old definition had excluded the driver. In effect, a van designed to carry more than ten persons is now a 'bus' under Pennsylvania law. To transport students in a van of that size, a school would need to conform the van to the State's requirements for school buses.; The recent change in Pennsylvania law does not in any way affect ho our regulations apply to your 13 and 15 passenger vans. Your vehicles have always been classified as buses under Federal law, since under our regulations a bus is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons. Further, your vehicles are 'school buses' as that term is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act. The basic test under the Vehicle Safety Act is whether, as determined at the time of its first sale, a bus would be used to transport school children to or from school or related events. It is not relevant that the school uses the vehicles only occasionally. When the buses were sold to your school, it should have been clear to the dealer or manufacturer that the vehicles would be used as school buses.; It appears that St. Peter's purchase of new vans for the transportatio of students raises questions of compliance with Federal law by the dealers who sold you the vans. The Vehicle Safety Act required the dealer or manufacturer to sell vehicles which were certified as meeting all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to your future purchases of new vehicles, I urge you to keep in mind that the dealers are obligated to sell you vehicles that meet the school bus safety standards. They should know that they are at risk if they sell nonconforming vehicles.; The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit you from operating the 13 an 15 passenger vans. There might, however, be impediments under Pennsylvania State law. We administer a set of guidelines for state highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport 16 or less students must either be identified with the words 'School Bus' and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). Because it must have this equipment, a 13 or 15 passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a state that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.; I want to stress that HSPS 17 will affect you only if Pennsylvania ha adopted it and if Pennsylvania accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. Your State officials will be able to give you more information about other State requirements for school buses.; Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2401OpenAlfred Teves GMBH, 6 Frankfurt/Main 2, Postfach 119155, West Germany; Alfred Teves GMBH 6 Frankfurt/Main 2 Postfach 119155 West Germany; Dear Sirs: #This responds to the Alfred Teves GMBH (Teves) petition o April 9, 1976, for amendment of S5.2.1 of Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to eliminate the striping requirement in the case of hose used in assemblies that have 'keyed' end fittings at both ends. We interpret 'keyed' fittings to mean those that can be installed in only one (or possibly several) orientation(s) to the vehicle. #This is to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined to grant Teves' petition with regard to hose that is assembled into an assembly whose fittings permit their installation into the vehicle with only one orientation. Detailed reasons for the limitations expressed in this letter will accompany any notice that proposed this change. #You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule is made on the basis of all available information in accordance with statutory criteria. #Your letter incorrectly characterized the amendment of S5.2.2 that was proposed in Notice 19 of docket 1-5 (40 Fr 55365, November 28, 1975) and made final in Notice 21 (41 FR 28505, July 12, 1976). The amendment only stated that the labeling required on hose need not be present after the hose has become part of a brake hose assembly or after it has been installed in a motor vehicle. The conclusion in the second paragraph of your letter that '...brake hose does not require labelling according to S5.2.2...' is therefore incorrect. #With regard to your comments on Standard No. 116, *Brake Fluids*, I assume that you were referring to the agency's proposed definition of 'brake fluid' published on December 5, 1975 (40 FR 56928). I also assume that the phrase 'polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock' in the proposed definition led you to conclude that only polychloroprene inner tube stock would be allowed for brake hose construction. This is incorrect. All of the materials specified in the definition, including SBR, EPR, CR, and NR, are considered suitable for use in brake hoses. #Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
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.