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: aiam4302OpenThe Honorable William E. Dannemeyer, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable William E. Dannemeyer House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Mr. Dannemeyer: Thank your(sic) for your letter to Mr. Babbitt, our Director o Congressional Affairs, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Ed Money. Mr. Money recently imported a shipment of 'spinner hubcaps' from Taiwan. These hubcaps were seized by the U.S. Customs Service for failing to conform with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hubcaps* (49 CFR S571.211). You stated that it was your understanding that Standard No. 211 applies only to vehicle manufacturers and not to aftermarket parts dealers, and that the Customs Service had erroneously applied Standard No. 211 to the products you(sic) constitutent(sic) intended to import. Accordingly, you asked that we review the requirements of Standard No. 211 and state whether those requirements apply to 'anyone other than a manufacturer of automobiles'.; After carefully reviewing the language of Standard No. 211 and ever prior interpretation of the standard, we have concluded that the Customs Service correctly applied Standard No. 211 to Mr. Money's hubcaps. Section S2 of Standard No. 211 specifies that, 'This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, *and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment*.' (Emphasis added) This language means that the standard applies to all wheel nuts, wheel discs and hubcaps for use on passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether the part is to be used as original equipment or as a replacement part. This meaning has long been affirmed in this agency's letters of interpretation. We explained the application of Standard No. 211 in letter of May 8, 1967, to Mr. Earl Kinter, and May 10, 1967, to Mr. Harold Halfpenny. I have enclosed copies of both these previous interpretations for your information. These letter are still accurate expressions of the agency's opinion on this question.; Standard No. 211, which was one of the original Federal motor vehicl safety standards, became effective on January 1, 1968. As of that date, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) made it illegal to 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or *import into the Untied States'* any 'spinner hubcaps' (Emphasis added). Therefore, we believe the U.S. Customs Service was enforcing the law properly when it seized the hubcaps Mr. Money sought to import.; You enclosed with your letter advertisements from several othe aftermarket parts suppliers offering spinner hubcaps for sale. Our enforcement personnel will investigate each of those suppliers and take appropriate actions if their hubcaps violate Standard No. 211; I hope this information clarifies the law on this subject. If you hav any further questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2443OpenMr. George R. Semark, Manager, Vehicle Safety Activities, Sheller-Globe Corporation, Vehicle Planning and Development Center, 3555 St. Johns Avenue, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. George R. Semark Manager Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation Vehicle Planning and Development Center 3555 St. Johns Avenue Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Semark: This responds to Sheller-Globe Corporation's August 31, 1976, questio whether 5 described intersections in a bus body qualify as 'body panel joints' subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*.; The windshield fence that you describe in section A of your lette connects the window glazing seal to the bus body and is considered to be a portion of the window by the NHTSA. Windows are excluded from the definition of 'body panel joint' found in S4 of the standard. Therefore, the fence would be excluded from the requirements of the standard.; The 'trim molding' described in section B of your letter constitutes body panel that encloses occupant space. The fact that the trim is decorative does not place it within the exclusion of 'spaces designed for ventilation or other functional purpose.' Since the 'trim molding' is a body panel and is connected to a body component, it creates a joint subject to the requirements of the standard. The fact that the molding, like every other part of the bus, has a function does not exclude it from the ambit of the joint requirement under the exception for 'ventilation or other functional purpose.'; In section C of your letter, you acknowledge that the joint where th skirt panel connects to the outside upper body panel falls within the ambit of the standard. You request an exception from the standard's requirements for this joint based upon a perceived lack of safety hazards resulting from failure of this joint in a crash situation.; To implement the Congressional mandate for school bus safety, the NHTS drafted Standard No. 221 to cover all joints that are potentially dangerous in a crash situation. The agency adopted this broad coverage of joints to avoid the more piecemeal approach of analyzing each joint for possible safety problems, because it is impracticable to test every joint in every possible accident configuration. Therefore, since the joint you describe falls within the parameters of the standard, it must meet the requirements specified.; The joint described in section D of your letter where the vent eve connect to the outside roof panel is a joint within the definition of the standard. The outside roof panel is a 'body panel' as defined in S4. The junction where a 'body panel' connects to a 'body component,' the vent eves, constitutes a joint regulated by the standard.; With regard to section E of your letter, the NHTSA agrees that th joint where the outside and inside lower panels connect is within the scope of the standard. Whether or not the joint itself is covered by trim molding is not relevant to its status. It is still a joint within the definition of the standard and subject to all of the requirements therein.; I trust these interpretations fully answer your questions. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3816OpenMr. R. G. Brown, Chief Engineer, Materials Engineering, Wagner Division, McGraw-Edison Company, 18448 Craig Road, St. Louis, MO 63146; Mr. R. G. Brown Chief Engineer Materials Engineering Wagner Division McGraw-Edison Company 18448 Craig Road St. Louis MO 63146; Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 116, *Moto Vehicle Brake Fluids*. You asked whether paper labels on brake fluid containers are sufficient to comply with the 'indelibly marked' requirements of the standard. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.; By way of background information, I would note that NHTSA does no grant 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 determine that its motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116 states: >>>Each packager of a brake fluid shall furnish the followin information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . .<<<; It is our opinion that this section requires the relevant informatio to be marked directly on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label, whether paper or of some other material, that is affixed to the container. This is clear both from the plain language of the section and from the Federal Register notices proposing and adopting that language.; In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 30, 1970 NHTSA proposed the following language as part of the packaging and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake fluids:; >>>S4.2.2.2 Each packager of brake fluid shall furnish to eac distributor or dealer to whom he sells brake fluid, the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container, or on a label or tag firmly attached to each such container. . . . 35 FR 15229, 15231.<<<; The final rule, published on June 24, 1971, did not adopt the propose alternative of permitting the information to be provided on a label or tag firmly attached to the container, but instead required the information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. The language as adopted, which is very similar to the current language, was:; >>>S5.2.2.2 Each packager of motor vehicle brake fluid shall furnis the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . . 36 FR 11987, 11989.<<<; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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: aiam3441OpenBrian T. Williams, Esq., Assistant Counsel, Saunders Leasing System, Inc., 201 Office Park Drive, Birmingham, AL 35233; Brian T. Williams Esq. Assistant Counsel Saunders Leasing System Inc. 201 Office Park Drive Birmingham AL 35233; Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of ou requirements concerning the presence of a 'DOT' symbol on retreaded truck tires. Specifically, you asked whether a retreader would be in violation of any regulations if the retreader purchases casings (use tires to be retreaded) from which the 'DOT' symbol has already been removed, and whether the retreader itself has a duty to remove the 'DOT' symbol.; The retreader is not liable for using casings from which the 'DOT symbol has been removed, although any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business other than a retreader which removes that symbol from the casings is violating Federal regulations. The retreader does have an affirmative duty to remove the 'DOT' symbol from the sidewall of retreaded truck tires.; The 'DOT' symbol is required to appear on new truck tires as certification that those tires fully comply with all the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119), pursuant to the requirement of section S6.5(a) of that standard. Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who removes this symbol would be removing an element of design installed on the tire in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Such removal is expressly prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). However, there is no prohibition against subsequent use of these tires for further manufacturing operations, such as retreading. Hence, a retreader using these casings would not subject itself to any liability for violating section 108(a)(2)(A) or any other regulation.; The retreader has an affirmative duty to remove the DOT symbol from th tire during the course of the retreading operation. Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping* (copy enclosed) sets forth the basic tire marking requirements for retreaders of truck tires. Section 574.5 imposes two basic duties on truck tire retreaders - (1) the retreader is required to mold or brand a tire identification number into the sidewall of each tire it retreads, except those retreaded solely for the retreader's own use, and (2) the 'DOT' symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable. Since there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truck tires, it follows that no 'DOT' symbol may appear on the sidewall of those tires.; Should you have any further questions or need further information o this matter, feel free to contact me again.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4296OpenCharles Schamblin, Flag-It Fluorescent Signaling Device Co., Post Office Box 1709, Bakersfield, CA 93302; Charles Schamblin Flag-It Fluorescent Signaling Device Co. Post Office Box 1709 Bakersfield CA 93302; Dear Mr. Schamblin: Your letter of December 29, 1986, to Michael M. Finkelstein has bee referred to my Office for reply. You also addressed a letter of January 9, 1987, to my Office. Because these letter concern the same matter, this response addresses them both. In the December 29 letter, you asked about the appropriate color for your product, the Flag-It Fluorescent Signaling Device. The device, which you enclosed with your correspondence, is a rectangular green fluorescent strip, designed to be permanently attached to and hang vertically from the license plate frame on the front of a motor vehicle.; You state that you designed this device 'especially to meet th requirements for fluorescent material in the front of motor vehicles.' You ask for a 'letter of certification' that your device can be used and sold in the Unites States.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicle and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.; Your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment under S102(4) of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and as such, falls under NHTSA's jurisdiction. However, none of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards applies to your product.; Standard 125, *Warning Devices*, sets uniform design specifications o reflective warning devices used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle. As is apparent from the provisions regarding the scope and applications of the standard, Standard 125 applies to devices designed to be carried in motor vehicles and erected when needed to warn approaching traffic. It does not apply to warning devices designed to be permanently attached to a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, you may wish to use the colors specified in paragraph S5.3. They are the ones which the agency believes most appropriate for warning devices subject to the standard.; Standard 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* applies to reflective devices. While the agency notes that your product includes reflective material, Standard 108 covers aftermarket reflective devices only to the extent that the aftermarket device replaces required original reflective equipment. Because the kind of device you described is not subject to any Standard 108 requirement as original reflective equipment, it is likewise not subject to any such requirement as aftermarket equipment.; Finally, please be aware that if you or the agency finds your produc to contain a safety-related defect after you market the product, you are responsible for conducting a notice and recall campaign under S154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414).; Further, you should be aware that State law may apply to equipment suc as your signaling device. You may wish to consult the state and local transportation authorities in the areas where you intend to market your product.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3299OpenMr. Milton M. Singleton, Vice President, Yarbrough Manufacturing Co., Inc., P.O. Box 848, Arlington, Texas 76010; Mr. Milton M. Singleton Vice President Yarbrough Manufacturing Co. Inc. P.O. Box 848 Arlington Texas 76010; Dear Mr. Singleton: This will confirm your telephone conversation of April 23, 1980, wit Mr. Nelson Erickson of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standard concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 - Vehicle identification number.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standard or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5557OpenMr. Douglas Helbig Vice President Spencer Testing Services P.O. Box 429 Spencer, WV 25276; Mr. Douglas Helbig Vice President Spencer Testing Services P.O. Box 429 Spencer WV 25276; Dear Mr. Helbig: This responds to your letter asking me to confirm you belief that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lacks the authority to require the periodic reinspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on alternative fuel motor vehicles. You are correct. NHTSA has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment. I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3298OpenMr. Emerson D. Gilbert, Engineer, Yellowstone, Inc., 28163 C.R. 20 West, P.O. Box 1128, Elkhart, Indiana 46515; Mr. Emerson D. Gilbert Engineer Yellowstone Inc. 28163 C.R. 20 West P.O. Box 1128 Elkhart Indiana 46515; Dear Mr. Singleton(sic): This will confirm your telephone conversation of April 23, 1980, wit Mr. Nelson Erickson of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standard concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 - Vehicle identification number.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standard or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4598OpenMs. Karen E. Finkel Executive Director National School Transportation Association P.O. Box 2639 Springfield, VA 22152; Ms. Karen E. Finkel Executive Director National School Transportation Association P.O. Box 2639 Springfield VA 22152; "Dear Ms. Finkel: This responds to your recent letter to my offic asking whether school buses used by school bus contractors regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must have push-out windows, even when those buses are used for purposes other than school transportation. The answer to your question depends on the effect of our and FWHA regulations on the vehicles in question. We will only address the effect of NHTSA's requirements in this letter, and will ask FHWA to reply to you directly on FHWA requirements for push-out windows. Under NHTSA's requirements, the answer is no. As you know, the buses you describe would have to comply with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for school buses if they are sold as 'school buses,' i.e., for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. (49 CFR /571.3) The determination of the intended use of the vehicle would be made at the time the new vehicle is first sold to the 'school bus contractors.' Any person selling the new buses to the contractors who knows that the vehicles would be used as school buses would be required to sell complying school buses. Since vehicles need only meet the FMVSS's applicable to their vehicle type (e.g., 'school buses'), the school buses need not meet FMVSS's for non-school buses, even though the school buses might also be used for purposes other than school transportation. Conversely, any person selling a bus to a contractor knowing that the bus would not be so used, would not be required to sell a complying school bus. FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, does not generally require push-out windows for school buses, except a push-out rear window is required if a manufacturer decides to satisfy FMVSS No. 217's school bus emergency exit requirements by selecting the option (S5.2.3.1(b)) that calls for such a window. Further, FMVSS No. 217 does not require push-out windows for non-school buses. The agency proposed to require push-out windows for non-school buses early in the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217 (35 FR 13025, August 15, 1970), but decided against such a requirement because devices other than push-out windows appeared to be effective for emergency egress. 37 FR 9394, May 10, 1972. Thus, new buses sold to bus operators for non-school bus purposes need not have push-out windows under Standard No. 217. For your information, NHTSA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 44623, November 4, 1988) to review Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements for school buses. Among the issues under consideration by the agency is the desirability of a requirement for push-out windows. NHTSA is presently reviewing the comments received on the notice. A copy of the notice is enclosed. In summary, a new bus sold for purposes that include carrying school children must meet our FMVSS's for school buses. This is so even if the bus is also used for non-school purposes. Our FMVSS's for school and non-school buses do not now generally require push-out windows. We expect the FHWA will provide you with an interpretation of their requirements for push-out windows shortly. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
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.