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: aiam3049OpenMr. Herman L. Massie, Chief of Pupil Transportation, Department of Education, Columbus, OH 43215; Mr. Herman L. Massie Chief of Pupil Transportation Department of Education Columbus OH 43215; Dear Mr. Massie: This responds to your June 15, 1979, letter asking about the use o standard production vans for the transportation of school children to or from school or related events. In particular, you ask whether a 15-passenger Dodge Maxi-Van can be used for school transportation.; Whether a new vehicle sold for use as a school vehicle must comply wit the Federal school bus safety standards depends on whether the vehicle meets our definition of a bus. Our definition provides that a bus is 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). Thus, a vehicle that transport (sic) 10 or fewer persons may be sold as a school vehicle and need not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, a Dodge Maxi-Van capable of carrying 15 persons is a bus. If such a vehicle is sold new for use as a school vehicle, it must comply with those standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3047OpenMr. Herman L. Massie, Chief of Pupil Transportation, Department of Education, Columbus, OH 43215; Mr. Herman L. Massie Chief of Pupil Transportation Department of Education Columbus OH 43215; Dear Mr. Massie: This responds to your June 15, 1979, letter asking about the use o standard production vans for the transportation of school children to or from school or related events. In particular, you ask whether a 15-passenger Dodge Maxi-Van can be used for school transportation.; Whether a new vehicle sold for use as a school vehicle must comply wit the Federal school bus safety standards depends on whether the vehicle meets our definition of a bus. Our definition provides that a bus is 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). Thus, a vehicle that transport (sic) 10 or fewer persons may be sold as a school vehicle and need not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, a Dodge Maxi-Van capable of carrying 15 persons is a bus. If such a vehicle is sold new for use as a school vehicle, it must comply with those standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3004OpenMr. Dave Williams, Studio Aguila, P.O. Box 1202, Gisborne, New Zealand; Mr. Dave Williams Studio Aguila P.O. Box 1202 Gisborne New Zealand; Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your March 12, 1979, letter asking whether a sport car designed for use without doors must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, *Side Door Strength* (49 CFR 571.214). The vehicle design discussed in your letter would apparently only have attachable doors for use in bad weather.; Since the test procedures in Safety Standard No. 214 require a loadin device to be placed against the vehicle door, a passenger car having no doors could not practicably be tested. Therefore, a vehicle having doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from the vehicle are not required to comply with Safety Standard No. 214, if the vehicle is designed to be operated without the doors.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4764OpenMr. William Waltz Wagner Division Cooper Industries, Inc. 155 Algonquin Parkway Whippany, NJ 07981; Mr. William Waltz Wagner Division Cooper Industries Inc. 155 Algonquin Parkway Whippany NJ 07981; Dear Mr. Waltz: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, l990 stating that Wagner Division 'would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a 'Determination of Inconsequentiality' for non-compliance.' Specifically, Wagner wishes to manufacture round sealed beam headlamps (not 'bulbs' as you call it) for Lectric Limited, a small parts business geared towards the antique automobile hobby. The headlamps are intended for use on 'antique automobiles'. We understand that term to mean any automobile manufactured in l940 and subsequent model years that was originally equipped with round sealed beam headlamps. Although the headlamps would be designed to conform to current specifications, those of SAE Standard J579c, the word 'top' would be used on the 7-inch diameter headlamp instead of the designation '2CI' (you mean '2D1'), the numeral '1' for '1C1' on the single beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp, and the numeral '2' for '2C1' on the dual beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp. The lamps would not bear 'DOT' identification. Lectric Limited is willing to 'ink stamp' DOT, 2Dl, 1C1, and 2C1 'on either the face and or the rear' of each headlamp so that they would not be mistaken for those conforming to SAE J579a, and to print instructions for purchasers explaining the difference. Lectric Limited is also willing to insure that the headlamps are marketed only through antique auto specialty retailers. First, let me explain that your request cannot be considered as one for a determination of inconsequentiality. These determinations are made after-the-fact in order to determine whether a manufacturer must fulfill statutory obligations which include replacement, repurchase, or repair of the already-manufactured noncompliant product. What you seek is permission to produce motor vehicle equipment that fails to comply with labeling requirements. Unfortunately, the agency has no exemption provisions which can address this issue. We have authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicles from compliance for a temporary period, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, on either a temporary or permanent basis. Further, we cannot waive the marking requirements of sections S7.2 and S7.3 of Standard No. 108, even for the limited purpose and subject to the restrictions you discuss. After due consideration of the matter, we believe that you have no choice other than to conform to the marking requirements of Standard No. 108. Although neither the marking nor the performance of J579c headlamps replicates that of J579a headlamps, I hope that auto enthusiasts will be willing to accept the marking that goes with the improved performance. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3502OpenJerry Manzagol, Director, New Mexico Transportation Department, Motor Vehicle Division, Manuel Lujan Senior Building, Santa Fe, NM 87503; Jerry Manzagol Director New Mexico Transportation Department Motor Vehicle Division Manuel Lujan Senior Building Santa Fe NM 87503; Dear Mr. Manzagol: This is in response to your letter of October 13, 1981, requesting th approval of the New Mexico odometer disclosure form for use in lieu of the Federal odometer disclosure form.; The Odometer Disclosure Requirements (49 CFR Part 580) provide that th transferor of a vehicle may make the disclosure required by the Federal odometer laws on the state certificate of title, if the state title document contains essentially the same information required on the Federal odometer disclosure statement. If the information contained on the state certificate of title varies from that required by the Federal form, the state must obtain the approval of this agency before its certificate of title can be used as a substitute for the Federal form.; In order to spare states the burden of an approval process the agenc has indicated that certain variations from the Federal form are acceptable. In the *Federal Register* notice of August 1, 1977, which amended the disclosure regulations, we gave examples of shortened forms that would be acceptable. A state document can be considered to be approved for use as a full disclosure statement if it varies from the Federal form in only those aspects noted in the August 1, 1977, notice, a copy of which is enclosed.; The agency has reviewed New Mexico's proposed odometer disclosur statement and has determined that it cannot be substituted for the Federal disclosure statement. New Mexico's proposed statement contains four alternate certifications concerning the accuracy of the mileage from which the seller must select the appropriate certification. The third alternate certification requires the seller to certify that the odometer reading is the mileage since the odometer was reset and to disclose the mileage before the odometer was reset. This certification permits conduct that violates the Federal odometer law.; The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ('Act') prohibit resetting the odometer with the intent to change the miles except as provided by the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1984, 1985. The Act permits resetting the odometer during the lawful repair or replacement of the odometer but specifically requires that the odometer reading be reset to either the mileage before repair or replacement or to zero. The third alternate certification suggests that the odometer can be rest to any reading and for other than repair purposes. Since such conduct violate the Act, the certification should be rephrased to permit resetting the odometer reading only in accordance with the repair and replacement provisions of the Act.; In addition, the New Mexico form does not provide for the signature o the transferee as required by the regulations. 49 CFR 580.4(e). The transferee's signature substantiates that the buyer has seen the odometer disclosure statement and is aware of the mileage that the vehicle has been driven and, therefore, must be included on the state odometer disclosure statement.; If the third alternate certification is rephrased to comport with th repair and replacement provisions of the Act and the transferee's signature is added, New Mexico's disclosure statement can be substituted for use in lieu of the Federal form. However, if New Mexico adopts language in its disclosure statement that varies from that contained in the August 1, 1977, *Federal Register* notice, please submit the disclosure statement to the agency for approval.; Sincerely, David W. Allen, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0124OpenMr. John F. Floberg, Vice President, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio 44317; Mr. John F. Floberg Vice President Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Akron Ohio 44317; Dear Mr. Floberg: This will acknowledge your letters of July 12, 1968, October 10, 1968 and October 31, 1968, to the National Highway Safety Bureau requesting the addition of three 50 Series Centilevered Sidewall tire size designations to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; On the basis of the data submitted indicating compliance with th requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 110 and other information submitted in accordance with the procedural guidelines set forth in *Federal Register* Volume 33, No. 195, Page 14964, dated October 5, 1968, the E50C-16, F50C-16 and H50C-17 tire size designations will be listed within a new table to be established in Appendix A of standard No. 109 and the 3 1/2 inch rim size will be listed within Table I od the Appendix to Standard No. 110. These changes will be published in the *Federal Register* in the near future.; The addition of new tire size designations to the tables i accomplished through an abbreviated procedure consisting of the publication in the *Federal Register* of the petitioned tire sizes or tables. 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 the Procedural Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will be considered.; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4829OpenMr. Samuel Yk Lau Kenwo Industries Ltd. Unit 20, 10/F, Block A, Hi-Tech Ind. Center, 5 Pak Tin Par Street, Tsuen Wan Hong Kong; Mr. Samuel Yk Lau Kenwo Industries Ltd. Unit 20 10/F Block A Hi-Tech Ind. Center 5 Pak Tin Par Street Tsuen Wan Hong Kong; Dear Mr. Lau: This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991 asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an 'additional brake lamp' that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask 'if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product', and, further, 'does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?' Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp orignally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, l985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. 108. For lighting equipment this certification may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an Identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here. However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. 108, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of MOtor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA. We enclose a copy of Standard No. 108 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam1099OpenMr. Vic Horne, Plant & Equipment Manager, Habco, Inc. 2251 Armour Road, North Kansas City, MO 64116; Mr. Vic Horne Plant & Equipment Manager Habco Inc. 2251 Armour Road North Kansas City MO 64116; Dear Mr. Horne: This is in reply to your letters of January 29 and March 20, 1973 concerning the application of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to trucks to which you add railroad wheels, enabling the trucks to be driven on railroad tracks. In response to our letter to you of February 26, 1973, you enclosed in your letter of March 20 a picture representative of these vehicles, and provided us with certain information. Among other things you state that the vehicles are used on public highways approximately 50 per cent of the time, and that they are licensed under State laws.; Based on our examination of this picture, and the information provide with it, we are of the opinion that these vehicles are motor vehicles, specifically trucks, and are required to conform to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to trucks. This is true if the vehicles are new vehicles when you modify them, regardless of whether they are your own trucks or whether they are modified for customers.; The Certification requirement which you refer to is based on sectio 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403), and regulations issued by NHTSA (49 CFR Parts 567, 568, copy enclosed). Essentially, the regulations specify a means for manufacturers to certify their vehicles as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your responsibilities for Certification will depend upon whether you are an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, as these terms are defined in the regulations. While it is your responsibility to determine which category applies to you, it appears to us that you are most likely an intermediate manufacturer. We base this opinion on the fact that the truck pictured lacks a body, even though the railroad wheels have been added. It appears that some form of body will be added, as you state in your March 20 letter that the vehicles are intended to be 'spray trucks'. If this is correct, your responsibilities for Certification are found at Part 568, 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages'. Briefly, intermediate manufacturers are required to forward to the final- stage manufacturer the document the intermediate manufacturer received with the incomplete vehicle. If the intermediate manufacturer alters the vehicle so as to affect the validity of statements in the document, he is required to provide an addendum to the document indicating the changes he made.; If the vehicle is a completed vehicle before the rail wheels are added your responsibilities are contingent upon the extent of the modification you perform. Because these modifications are significant the respect to the vehicle's intended use, we would consider section 567.4, 'Requirements for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles,' the appropriate requirements for you to meet. The NHTSA has proposed requirements for vehicle alterers, which might apply to you in this case, but these requirements have not been issued in final form.; You may obtain copies of NHTSA requirements as specified on th enclosed form, 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1100OpenMr. Vic Horne, Plant & Equipment Manager, Habco, Inc. 2251 Armour Road, North Kansas City, MO 64116; Mr. Vic Horne Plant & Equipment Manager Habco Inc. 2251 Armour Road North Kansas City MO 64116; Dear Mr. Horne: This is in reply to your letters of January 29 and March 20, 1973 concerning the application of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to trucks to which you add railroad wheels, enabling the trucks to be driven on railroad tracks. In response to our letter to you of February 26, 1973, you enclosed in your letter of March 20 a picture representative of these vehicles, and provided us with certain information. Among other things you state that the vehicles are used on public highways approximately 50 per cent of the time, and that they are licensed under State laws.; Based on our examination of this picture, and the information provide with it, we are of the opinion that these vehicles are motor vehicles, specifically trucks, and are required to conform to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to trucks. This is true if the vehicles are new vehicles when you modify them, regardless of whether they are your own trucks or whether they are modified for customers.; The Certification requirement which you refer to is based on sectio 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403), and regulations issued by NHTSA (49 CFR Parts 567, 568, copy enclosed). Essentially, the regulations specify a means for manufacturers to certify their vehicles as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your responsibilities for Certification will depend upon whether you are an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, as these terms are defined in the regulations. While it is your responsibility to determine which category applies to you, it appears to us that you are most likely an intermediate manufacturer. We base this opinion on the fact that the truck pictured lacks a body, even though the railroad wheels have been added. It appears that some form of body will be added, as you state in your March 20 letter that the vehicles are intended to be 'spray trucks'. If this is correct, your responsibilities for Certification are found at Part 568, 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages'. Briefly, intermediate manufacturers are required to forward to the final- stage manufacturer the document the intermediate manufacturer received with the incomplete vehicle. If the intermediate manufacturer alters the vehicle so as to affect the validity of statements in the document, he is required to provide an addendum to the document indicating the changes he made.; If the vehicle is a completed vehicle before the rail wheels are added your responsibilities are contingent upon the extent of the modification you perform. Because these modifications are significant the respect to the vehicle's intended use, we would consider section 567.4, 'Requirements for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles,' the appropriate requirements for you to meet. The NHTSA has proposed requirements for vehicle alterers, which might apply to you in this case, but these requirements have not been issued in final form.; You may obtain copies of NHTSA requirements as specified on th enclosed form, 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3346OpenMr. Hiromi Hamaya, Vice President, Engineering Department, Bridgestone Tire Company of America, Inc., 2160 West 190th Street, P. O. Box 2964, Torrance, California 90509; Mr. Hiromi Hamaya Vice President Engineering Department Bridgestone Tire Company of America Inc. 2160 West 190th Street P. O. Box 2964 Torrance California 90509; Dear Mr. Hamaya: This responds to your July 17, 1980 letter to this office in which yo posed six questions concerning Safety Standard 119 (49 CFR s571.119). The answers are set forth below following the number you assigned to each question in your letter.; (1) No, T&RA design information is not considered apart of the T&R yearbook for purposes of Standard 119, Design information refers to future tire sizes which will soon be produced, but which are not currently on the market. Since the specifications in the design information have not been formally approved by T&RA, as the yearbook entries have, the design information has not been subjected to the same type of examination by T&RA, and is not accepted by this agency.; (2) The Plunger Energy Table (Table II in Standard 119) Publishe November 13, 1973 is the most current table we have published.; (3)The ETRTO petition to which you refer has not been granted by thi agency. Shortly after receipt of the petition, we made a telephone contact with ETRTO requesting further information which would justify setting the plunger energy specifications at the requested levels. ETRTO was informed that the petition would not be considered until we had received this additional information, and no further information has been received. Similarly, you company has requested the inclusion of additional values for Table II i a letter dated August 9, 1979. Mr. Finkelstein, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, sent a letter to Mr. P. L. Lab of Bridgestone on September 12, 1979 requesting further information and justification for including these values. To date, no further information has been received.; (4) Since there is no plunger energy value specified for tubeless tire with a load range greater than 'J' in Table II, there are currently no requirements for plunger energy strength that these tires must meet. It is acceptable if you choose to test these tires at the strength level specified for load rang 'J' ties, but that level is significantly below what would be expected for higher load range tires.; (5) When you company submits matching information to this agenc pursuant to the requirements of S5.1(a) of Standard 119, it is perfectly acceptable to send duplicate copies of the information you have furnished to the dealers, and no separate letter is necessary.; (6) I am aware of only three requests for plunger energy tests fo tubeless tires with load ranges greater than 'J'. The first came from Michelin in 1973, when the Standard wa being development. NHTSA asked Michelin to provide information o the proposed values, and Michelin never raised the issue again. ETRTO submitted the petition your referred to in question 3, and never provided the further information requested. Bridgestone submitted a petition in August 1979 and never provided the further information requested. There have been no other requests for additional plunger energy values.; If you have any further questions concerning this matter please fee free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202)426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.