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: aiam2132OpenMr. Don Jackson, Detroit Testing Laboratory, 8720 Northend Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48237; Mr. Don Jackson Detroit Testing Laboratory 8720 Northend Avenue Detroit Michigan 48237; Dear Mr. Jackson: #I am writing to confirm your November 7, 1975 telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning testing for the performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*. I understand that you have a contract with a hose manufacturer to perform certification testing of the brake hose and brake hose assemblies which he manufactures, and that four motorcycle companies purchase assemblies from your client which are identical but for varying lengths. #As Mr. Schwimmer explained, Standard No. 106-74 does not specify the testing which a manufacturer must do before certifying that his hose and assemblies comply, it does specify the performance levels which these products must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires the manufacturer to conduct a notification and remedy campaign with respect to noncomplying hose and assemblies. He is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying assembly (not to exceed $800,000 for each related series of noncompliances). The amount of testing which he performs has no effect on his notification and remedy obligations. The civil penalty liability, however, does not apply to a person who established that he did not, while exercising due care, have reason to know that his product did not comply. 'Due care' is a legal concept evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of the company, the amount of testing performed, and other factors. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1846OpenHonorable Hubert H. Humphrey, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Humphrey: This responds to your letter of March 4, requesting consideration o Mr. Robert Bjorklund's view that Federal standards require disc brake systems on pick-up and 1-ton trucks.; There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard which requires dis brakes on trucks or any other vehicles. The only brake standard applicable to trucks at this time is Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, and this standard is limited to the performance of trucks which the manufacturer chooses to equip with air brakes. Mr. Bjorklund describes his vehicles as pick- ups and 1-ton trucks, which to our knowledge, are equipped only with hydraulic brake systems. Therefore they are not subject to any Federal brake performance standard.; We conclude that the manufacturers of these vehicles have made th decision that their products should be equipped with disc brakes.; Sincerely, William H. Marsh, Executive Secretary |
|
ID: aiam2810OpenMr. Edwin S. Kirby, The Johnson Manufacturing Co., 605 Miami Street, Urbana, OH 43078; Mr. Edwin S. Kirby The Johnson Manufacturing Co. 605 Miami Street Urbana OH 43078; Dear Mr. Kirby: This responds to Johnson Manufacturing's May 4, 1978, request fo confirmation that the requirement in Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, that reservoirs 'withstand' specific pressure does not require testing of a multi-compartment reservoir compartment-by-compartment.; Your understanding of the 'withstanding' requirement in S5.1.2.2 an S5.2.1.3 is correct. Although the agency sought to clarify that compartment-by-compartment testing was the proper interpretation of this requirement (42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977), problems with the interpretation resulted in its withdrawal (43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978) and adherence to the existing interpretation that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir. Under this interpretation only the circumference of the outer reservoir shell is measured, and internal baffles are not stressed by separate compartment-by-compartment testing.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5576OpenDirector of Operations Central New York Regional Transport Authority 200 Cortland Avenue Syracuse, NY 13205; Director of Operations Central New York Regional Transport Authority 200 Cortland Avenue Syracuse NY 13205; Dear Mr. Renock: Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for you Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Transit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years. The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With regard to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you. NHTSA has been authorized by Congress 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 or 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 or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment. 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 cc: M. Judson Brown; |
|
ID: aiam1901OpenHonorable George Mahon, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable George Mahon House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Mahon: This is in response to your letter of February 13, 1975, forwarding a article from Modern Tire Dealer which cited a speech by Len Barnes of the Automobile Club of Michigan. Mr. Barnes' speech concerned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation. As we advised you in our letter of March 7, 1975, we believe the questions raised in Mr. Barnes' speech should be answered fully, and delayed our response until we could review our own data in this area.; By Act of Congress (Public Law 91-265), the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act was amended in 1970 to require manufacturers and retreaders of tires to maintain the names and addresses of first purchasers so that owners of defective tires may be notified of any defect. The legislative history of this amendment makes it clear that the Congress recognized the need for regulations in the area. Earlier joint attempts by manufacturers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to notify purchasers of defective tires produced inadequate results even in cases where the manufacturer offered to replace the defective tires free of charge. The poor results were attributable to the fact that owners could not be directly notified of the defect.; The magnitude of the problem which the regulation seeks to alleviate i clear. Since the inception of the program in 1966 through 1973, there have been 1,427,670 tires recalled in 88 separate defect recall campaigns. In 1973 alone, there were 116,743 tires recalled in 11 defect recall campaigns, rather than 'less than 100,000' as Mr. Barnes suggests. Further, information available to NHTSA indicates that the cost figure of 75 cents for each tire registration cited in Mr. Barnes' speech is too high, and that the actual processing cost is nearer to 25 cents. While it may be that the higher figure includes the labor cost attributable to salesmen filling out the forms and the office secretary mailing them to the manufacturer, we feel it is highly unlikely that the regulation necessitates hiring additional dealer staff.; Even utilizing Mr. Barnes' cost figures, however, it is NHTSA's vie that 75 cents for each tire registration is not an exorbitant expense in terms of insuring that a motorist will be advised if a tire he purchased is defective and could lead to death, a serious injury, or damage to his vehicle. As a comparison, an average family belonging to the Automobile Club of Michigan, which employs Mr. Barnes, would pay $68.00 or more for the road service protection and travel information offered by the club over the same two year period he was paying 75 cents per tire for defect insurance.; Mr. Barnes also suggests that consumers pay $1,100 for each defectiv tire recalled. This argument is clearly spurious, and ignores the basic purpose of insurance, including that marketed by Mr. Barnes' employer. Even using Mr. Barnes' figure, however, we consider $1,100 a small price to pay to save a life or avoid an injury. You may also be interested to note that a Federal jury in Florida recently returned a $2,300,000 verdict against Sears Roebuck & Company in a tort action involving a defective tire.; With regard to the effectiveness of the recordkeeping regulation, ou records indicate the percentage of tires being recorded is increasing, and should continue to increase when additional enforcement action is taken against manufacturers and dealers who do not comply with the regulation. Further, the percentage of tire failures has fallen from 6% in the 1968-69 period to less than 1% during 1974. Of course, what is most needed to make the regulation effective is the voluntary cooperation of retreaders and dealers in recording, reporting and maintaining the required information.; While this regulation indisputably places an added responsibility o retailers, we also believe that the burden is neither onerous nor unjustified in view of the danger to the consumer. The NHTSA has continually attempted to improve and simplify the procedures for the registration of tires, the most recent example being the Universal Tire Registration Format issued on June 3, 1974.; The alternative suggested by Mr. Barnes, utilizing governmen inspectors, would in our view be even more expensive than the current procedure. There are 67 new tire plants and over 6,000 retreading shops in the United States and many more abroad. To establish Federal inspectors and test equipment in each plant would be enormously expensive. Further, it would run counter to the basic premise of the Motor Vehicles Safety Program which is that manufacturers are self-certifiers, and must take full responsibility for defective vehicles and equipment they place on the market.; For these reasons, we are convinced that the requirement that dealer record the name and address of tire purchasers at the time of sale is reasonable and appropriate.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3022OpenMr. Kenneth E. Tobin, Jr., Executive Secretary, Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau, 900 Spring Street, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Mr. Kenneth E. Tobin Jr. Executive Secretary Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau 900 Spring Street Silver Spring MD 20910; Dear Mr. Tobin: This is in reply to your letter of May 27, 1969, in which you submi information and photographs of mobile concrete plants, and ask whether they are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, with a view to determining whether comments should be submitted to Docket 1-11, Rear Underride Protection.; The matter of whether pieces such as the subject concrete plants ar motor vehicles within the meaning of section 203(3) of the Act, and also 'trailers' within the meaning of the proposed underride standard, is presently under consideration by this Agency.; We encourage your organization and its members to submit to the docke any materials that they consider relevant to the subject.; Sincerely, Howard A. Heffron, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4105OpenMr. Don Black, Director, U.S. Engineering Office, Alfa Romeo, Inc., 250 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Don Black Director U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associat Administrator for Rulemaking, requesting an interpretation of Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. Specifically, you stated that Alfa Romeo plans to label its front and rear bumpers in the following locations. The front bumper would have a label attached to the bumper assembly in the area where it would not be visible if a front license plate was attached to the bumper. The rear bumper would have a label attached to the rear bumper in an area that will be covered by a plastic snap-in molding. This molding must be removed to remove the rear bumper from the vehicle. You asked whether these planned locations would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(iii) that the labels be 'visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle.' It is NHTSA's opinion that the locations specified for marking bumpers in your letter would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(iii).; Your planned location for labeling the front bumpers is in an are where those labels will be visible at the time the cars arrive at the dealer and will remain visible unless and until a front license plate is installed on the car. NHTSA must thus determine whether the possible need to remove a front license plate would result in labels in this location failing to satisfy the requirement that labels be placed so that they will be 'visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle.' It appears not to be necessary to remove the front license plate in order to remove the front bumper from your vehicles. Hence, one might conclude that such location would not satisfy this requirement.; However, the intent underlying this requirement was clearly set fort in the rulemaking proceeding that established Part 541. The preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking contained the following sentence: 'Both commenters agreed, however, that NHTSA's regulations should ensure that investigators will not have to conduct any *additional* dismantling (over and above what chop shops, parts dealers, or thieves have ordinarily done) to locate the identifier on parts removed from a vehicle.' (Emphasis in original) 50 FR 19731, May 10, 1985. NHTSA believes that license plates are routinely removed from front bumpers by legitimate parts dealers prior to reselling the bumper. Law enforcement groups have assured us that license plates are removed from stolen bumpers, so that the stolen part cannot be traced to its rightful owner. In these circumstances, the agency has no reason to believe that labels for front bumpers that are covered by the front license plate will require investigators to conduct additional dismantling of the front bumpers. Accordingly, we conclude that labels on front bumpers that are clearly visible when the front license plate is removed satisfy the requirement that those labels be 'visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle.'; With respect to the rear bumpers, the situation is simpler. Accordin to your letter, the plastic molding covering the labels *must* be removed to remove the bumper from the vehicle. Thus, the label would be visible without further disassembly once the bumper has been removed from the vehicle. As such, it would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(iii).; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4862OpenMr. David E. McAllister Manufacturers Representative 442 Robin Hill Road Wayne, PA . 19087; Mr. David E. McAllister Manufacturers Representative 442 Robin Hill Road Wayne PA . 19087; "Dear Mr. McAllister: This responds to your letter of March 14, l99l 'as a supplier to the U.S. Postal Service for lights', asking whether it is 'legal' for the center high mounted stop lamp to flash. We understand that the new postal service vehicles are trucks. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the center highmounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars. When installed as original equipment on a passenger car, it is required to be steady-burning when the brake pedal is applied. However, since Standard No. 108 does not require center highmounted stop lamps on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, any such lamps would not be required to be steady-burning. Thus, the current requirements of Standard No. 108 would permit a center lamp on a postal truck to flash. Supplementary lighting equipment, i.e., lighting equipment that is not required by Standard No. 108, is subject to Standard No. 108's general prohibition that such not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer of the vehicle before it certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If it appears to be clearly erroneous, NHTSA will review the determination. With respect to the present case, it is theoretically possible that a flashing center stop lamp could 'impair the effectiveness' of the truck's two steady-burning primary stop lamps by sending a confusing signal. However, given the lamp's location on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, and the public recognition of the function of the center lamp on passenger cars, we do not believe it is likely that the public would be confused. We would like to advise you that the agency has proposed that trucks be equipped with steady-burning center lamps, and that it has announced that a final rule will be issued during the first half of 1991. If the final rule applies to postal trucks, then a flashing center lamp could not be installed on postal trucks manufactured on and after the rule's effective date. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0922OpenPaul F. Middleton, Esq., Attorney-at-Law, 60 E. Main Street, Moorestown, NJ (sic); Paul F. Middleton Esq. Attorney-at-Law 60 E. Main Street Moorestown NJ (sic); Dear Mr. Middleton: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1972 to the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration asking 'whether when a school bus is being used to transport pupils, the red lights must go on when the entrance door is opened without exception.'; If the system is one of red lamps only, its activation according to SA Standard J887 is not automatic but manual. The situation differs with respect to the combination amber and red lamps system. Paragraph S4.1.4(b)(ii) of Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1972, which you reference, states; >>>'The school bus signal lamp system shall be wired so that the ambe signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened.'<<<; This means that the red lamps are only activated if the amber lamp have been activated before the door is opened. Activation of the red lamp system is thus dependent upon the action of the bus operator in prior activation of the amber lamp system. From the standpoint of safety we hope that his activation of the amber lamp system will be 'without exception' whenever he is transporting pupils.; Because paragraph S3.1.3.2 of Standard No. 108 as it was in effect fro January 1, 1969 to January 1, 1972, which you also reference, could mistakenly be interpreted to require activation of the red lamp system without exception whenever the door was opened, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted the language of S4.1.4 to clarify the ambiguity.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4169OpenRobert G. Russell, Acting Director, Division of School Traffic Safety and Emergency Planning, Indiana Department of Education, Room 229, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2798; Robert G. Russell Acting Director Division of School Traffic Safety and Emergency Planning Indiana Department of Education Room 229 Indianapolis IN 46204-2798; Dear Mr. Russell: This responds to your letter asking about NHTSA's regulations fo school buses and the relationship between State and Federal school bus definitions and regulations. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; According to your letter, Indiana distinguishes 'special purpose buses' from 'school buses.' Under your State's law, 'school buses' are defined as motor vehicles, other than special purposes buses, designed for more than 10 passengers and used to transport school children. 'Special purpose buses' are motor vehicles accommodating more than six passengers used by schools to transport handicapped students to special programs, or school children and supervisors to extracurricular school activities. Special purpose buses are prohibited from being used on a regular basis to carry students between their residences and schools and are not required to meet any State identification, construction or equipment standards for school buses.; You asked whether Indiana's definitions of 'school buses' and 'specia purpose buses' conflict with our school bus definition, and how Federal law might preempt State law in this matter.; To begin, it is important to keep in mind how State and Federal schoo bus definitions and regulations differ in their application. The standards we have issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to vehicles according to our motor vehicle type classifications regardless of the classifications used by the various states. Our safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. Our regulatory definitions, set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.3, define a 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 or more passengers plus a driver, sold for purposes that include carrying students to or from school or related events. Our definitions do not include one for 'special purpose buses.' A vehicle that is designed to carry 10 or more passengers and meets the Indiana definition of 'special purpose buses' is considered a 'school bus' under Federal law since it is intended for pupil transportation, notwithstanding its exclusion from Indiana's school bus definition.; Therefore, each person selling 10-passenger or larger 'special purpos buses' is required under the Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that those vehicles are certified as school buses. Violation of this Federal requirement by sellers of new school buses is punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,000. The requirement applies to new school bus sellers regardless of whether a vehicle is considered a 'school bus' under the laws of a particular State.; Further, the preemption provisions in section 103(d) of the Vehicl Safety Act are not limited in their effect by the fact that this agency's classification of a vehicle differs from that of one or more of the States. Regardless of how Indiana classifies a vehicle, Indiana may not apply to that vehicle standards which cover the same aspects of performance as Federal standards but are not identical to the Federal standards. The only exception is a State may set higher standards of performance for vehicles procured for the State's own use.; A State's definition of a 'school bus' is, of course, determinative o the application of State requirements to the operation of school buses, such as inspection, maintenance and identification requirements. It appears that the provision in Indiana's definitions that special purpose buses are not 'school buses' excludes those vehicles from the application of Indiana's definitions that special purpose buses are not 'school buses' excludes those vehicles from the application of Indiana's school bus operational requirements. While Indiana is responsible for determining requirements for vehicles operating in that State, NHTSA recommends that each State consider carefully setting operational requirements for all vehicles used to carry school children. Recommendations for specific aspects of States' pupil transportation programs have been issued in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed), which was promulgated by NHTSA under the Highway Safety Act in connection with the Federal funding of State highway safety programs. While not required to do so, individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of Program Standard No. 17's recommendations and Indiana might want to consider them for their special purpose buses.; You asked whether schools are permitted at any time under Federal la to transport school children to or from school related activities in a vehicle other than a school bus. Strictly speaking, the answer is yes, for two reasons. This is because, first, the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act apply to new school bus manufacturers and sellers, and not to school bus users. Therefore, we cannot prohibit schools from using noncomplying buses to transport children although we do prohibit the manufacture and sale of new noncomplying school buses. Second, manufacturers and dealers are required to sell complying school buses only if they sell new *buses* for pupil transportation purposes. Other types of vehicles, for example 'multipurpose passenger vehicles' (vehicles constructed on truck chassis which carry nine or fewer passengers), may be sold to carry school children to school or school-related events.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.