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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam0165OpenMr. J. J. Serota, General Counsel, Grumman Allied Industries, Inc., 600 Old Country Road, Roosevelt Field, garden City, NY 11532; Mr. J. J. Serota General Counsel Grumman Allied Industries Inc. 600 Old Country Road Roosevelt Field garden City NY 11532; Dear Mr. Serota: This is in further response to your letter dated April 9, 1969 addressed to Robert M. O'Mahoney, which has been referred to this Bureau.; The location you have selected on the windshield wiper motor bracket as shown in your enclosed drawing number 69028, sheet 2, is approved as an alternative to the specified locations. We note, however, that you intend to use binding-head screws as your method of attachment. This method does not appear to fulfill the requirements of permanency and destruction on removal in section 367.4(b) of the Certification Regulations, 49 CFR Part 367.; As issued January 24, 1969 (34 F.R. 1148) the above section reads: 'Th label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without the use of tools and without destroying it.' a proposal issued on April 29, 1969 (34 F.R. 7032) would amend the section to read: 'The label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying it.' The requirements of permanency and destruction on removal remain in both versions.; Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director |
|
ID: aiam2158OpenMr. S. L. Smead, Motocross Engineers, Inc., P.O. Box 861, Wilbraham, MA 01095; Mr. S. L. Smead Motocross Engineers Inc. P.O. Box 861 Wilbraham MA 01095; Dear Mr. Smead: This is in response to your letter of February 6, 1976, concerning th application of 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*, to certain off-road motorcycle tires that you plan to import.; 'Motor vehicle' is defined in Section 102(3) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as:; >>>any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<; The Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation does not apply t tires that are not manufactured for use on motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it appears that the vehicles for which the tires in question are designed are not motor vehicles. Therefore, unless these tires are also designed for use on other vehicles that do meet the statutory definition of 'motor vehicle', they are not subject to any labeling requirements of the Department of Transportation.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5367OpenMr. Fred Carr, Engineer Utilimaster 65266 State Road 19 P. O. Box 585 Wakarusa, IN 46573-0585; Mr. Fred Carr Engineer Utilimaster 65266 State Road 19 P. O. Box 585 Wakarusa IN 46573-0585; "Dear Mr. Carr: This responds to your question asking whether Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to 'motor vehicle equipment relating to light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty trucks or truck manufacturers.' As explained below, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. S2. Application of Standard No. 211 states the following: This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment. 'Multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less, which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Since Standard No. 211 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and their equipment, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. 'Truck' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. Accordingly, manufacturers of trucks or truck equipment are not required to certify their trucks and truck equipment to the requirements of Standard No. 211. I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0535OpenMr. H. D. Blackburn, Vice President Engineering, Miller Trailers, Inc., 333 Sixth Avenue, West, Bradenton, FL 33505; Mr. H. D. Blackburn Vice President Engineering Miller Trailers Inc. 333 Sixth Avenue West Bradenton FL 33505; Dear Mr. Blackburn: This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1972, enclosing a cop of your drawing SKB-2103B and asking whether the vehicle lighting therein depicted is in compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Generally, the location of the lamps in the drawing appear i accordance with the location requirements of Standard No. 108. Front clearance and identification lamps, however, must be placed 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle' which, in the configuration illustrated is usually the truck body and not the cab.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2508OpenMr. W. G. Whitehead, Manager, Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs, Union Carbide Corporation, 270 Park Avenue, new York, N.Y. 10017; Mr. W. G. Whitehead Manager Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs Union Carbide Corporation 270 Park Avenue new York N.Y. 10017; Dear Mr. Whitehead: This responds to your January 31, 1977, question whether Safet Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*, currently requires a border around the safety warnings that are required to be placed on brake fluid containers.; Standard No. 116 was recently amended (41 FR 54942, December 16, 1976 to specify color coding requirements for hydraulic brake system fluids and to make a minor change in the required warning label. The proposal preceding this amendment did specify that the safety warnings on brake fluid containers be surrounded by a color coded border (40 FR 56928, December 5, 1975). However, after reviewing the comments submitted regarding the cost of the proposed borders and after reevaluating the expected safety benefits, the agency has decided to withdraw the proposed requirements. The final rule, therefore, did not include a requirement for color borders.; Although Standard No. 116 does not require a border around the safet warnings on brake fluid containers, manufacturers are permitted to use a border if they choose.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4825OpenLennard S. Loewentritt, Esq. Deputy Associate General Counsel Personal Property Division General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405; Lennard S. Loewentritt Esq. Deputy Associate General Counsel Personal Property Division General Services Administration Washington D.C. 20405; "Dear Mr. Loewentritt: This responds to your November 7, 1990 lette requesting further clarification with regard to my August 23, 1990 letter to you. 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply 'to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.' In my August letter, I stated that school buses purchased by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the sole use of the Army would be considered to fall within this exception. This interpretation was based on the assumption that GSA acts as a purchasing agent for the Army, and that the buses were actually sold to the Army, albeit indirectly. In your recent letter, you stated that this assumption was erroneous. While GSA's Automotive Center does act as a purchasing agent for some agencies, the vehicles in question would be purchased for the GSA's Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS). Vehicles in the IFMS 'are assigned on an indefinite basis to agencies that have had their fleets consolidated into the IFMS.' You stated that the Army has consolidated their nontactical vehicles into the IFMS. In this case then, the GSA would be purchasing buses which are intended for 'indefinite assignment to and sole use by the Army for the purpose of transporting troops as well as transporting military dependents to and from school.' You stated that these vehicles would be manufactured in conformity with contractual specifications 'which reflect the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for buses rather than school bus specifications.' Given this clarification of GSA's role, you again asked if these buses would fall within the exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c). The answer to your question would be yes, if the purchase contract specifies that the buses should not be certified as school buses in order to serve the needs of the Armed Forces. In these circumstances, we see no meaningful difference between a sale directly to an element of the Armed Forces and a sale to GSA's IFMS intended for exclusive and indefinite assignment to the Army. In announcing this conclusion, I want to make several points. In the interest of safety, I strongly recommend that the contract specify compliance with the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended use of the bus. Also, if reassignment of these buses to another agency is ever contemplated, I would appreciate your undertaking to ensure that they would only be used for transporting adults. I hope this response is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5222OpenMr. Han Dinh Project Manager United States Postal Service 8403 Lee Highway Merrifield, VA 22082-8101; Mr. Han Dinh Project Manager United States Postal Service 8403 Lee Highway Merrifield VA 22082-8101; "Dear Mr. Dinh: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about the conversion of postal vehicles to operate on compressed natural gas (CNG). You explained that you are deciding which specifications to apply to the CNG pressure vessels on the converted vehicles. You ask whether we would recommend the American Gas Association's voluntary standard, NGV-2, or the Department of Transportation standard for cylinders which transport CNG. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or vehicles using CNG as a fuel. However, as you know, NHTSA has undertaken rulemaking on a safety standard for CNG tanks and vehicles. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993.) In response to our January 1993 proposal, the agency received over 55 comments, which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. Given that this rulemaking has not been completed, NHTSA is unable to recommend to you a particular course of action with respect to the NGV-2 and DOT standards at this time. If NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders and vehicles, the standard would apply to new products, and have applicability to vehicle conversions as follows. The cylinder regulation would be an equipment standard. Thus, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on vehicles converted to CNG fuel. The fuel system regulation would apply to new vehicles as manufactured by original equipment manufacturers or as converted prior to the first sale of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is sold, if the vehicle is converted by a commercial converter, the CNG fuel system regulation would apply if the vehicle was manufactured after the effective date of the standard and thus would have been regulated if it had originally been a CNG vehicle. With this in mind, I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from 'knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed . . . in compliance' with any FMVSS. In addition, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For further information about FHWA requirements, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0020OpenMr. Earl W. Kinter, Arent, Fox Kinter, Plotkin & Kahan, 1100 Federal Bar Building,1815 'H' Street, NW,Washington D.C. 20006; Mr. Earl W. Kinter Arent Fox Kinter Plotkin & Kahan 1100 Federal Bar Building 1815 'H' Street NW Washington D.C. 20006; Dear Mr. Kinter:#This is in response to your letter of April 7, 1967 in behalf of the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) regarding the application of the Initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standard to original equipment and replacement parts.#I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer the questions which have been raised by the MEMA members and outlines in your letter. Before doing so, however, I would like to briefly discuss and clarify the effect of the actions taken March 29, 1967, by the National Traffic Safety Bureau, regarding Standard Nos. 111 and 206.#In your letter you have quoted certain language from the preamble to the amendments of Standards Nos. 111 to 206, and interpreted such language to mean that original equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, and replacement parts for vehicles manufactured on or after that date, fall within the regulations of these two Standards. I must advise that this interpretation in not correct. These standards as now amended no longer apply to equipment, but only to the vehicles specified in the standard when such vehicles are completed by the vehicle manufacturer on or after January 1, 1968.#It should be noted that where, as in the case of amended Standard Nos. 111 and 206, the paragraph designated 'S.2' and entitled, 'Application,' refers only to vehicles and not to vehicle equipment, the person responsible for compliance is the vehicle manufacturer. This is true notwithstanding the fact that identifiable equipment may be referred to and made the subject of control in some other paragraph of the standard. For example, Standard No. 107, in paragraph S4, refers to the 'horn ring and hub of steering wheel assembly, 'and prohibits a specular gloss of the surface of such equipment from exceeding a specified brightness. The vehicle manufacturer is solely responsible for compliance with this requirement.#There are now sixteen of the twenty initial standards which require compliance only by the vehicle manufacturer. However, Standard Nos. 106,205,209 and 211 each refer to *equipment* for use in specified motor vehicles in the application paragraph. Compliance and certification is required by both equipment manufacturer and vehicle manufacturer with regard to these four standards.#I will now direct myself to your specific questions which I will quote and follow with a brief answer.#(1) Do all the Initial Standards require *compliance and certification* by parts manufactured as to *replacement parts* for vehicles manufactured *after* January 1, 1968?#Answer: No, only Standard Nos. 106,205,209 and 211. #(2) Which of the Initial Standards, if any, apply to *replacement parts* produced on or after January 1, 1968, for vehicles manufactured *prior* to that date?#Answer: Standard Nos. 106,205,209 and 211. #(3) With respect to question 2, is a certification required of the affected equipment manufacturers in such cases?#Answer: Yes. #(4) With respect to question 1-3, are the compliance and certification requirements any different where the replacement parts involved are *identical* to the original equipment for vehicles produced on or after January 1, 1968?#Answer: No. #(5)Do the Initial Standards require manufacturers of *original equipment* produced on or after January 1, 1968, to certify their products?#Answer: The requirement for certification of motor vehicle equipment found in section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, provides in the pertinent part that:#>>>'Every manufacturer or distributor of ... motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the *distributer or dealer* at the time of delivery of such ... equipment ... the certification that each such ... item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards ...'(emphasis supplied).<< |
|
ID: aiam4960OpenMr. Steve Ross Future Visions, Ltd. 28 Cherry Lane Syosset, New York 11791; Mr. Steve Ross Future Visions Ltd. 28 Cherry Lane Syosset New York 11791; "Dear Mr. Ross: This responds to your letter that requested informatio about how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a product you wish to market. This product is an antitheft device for trucks and passenger automobiles equipped with power-assisted steering. In your letter, you stated that your device is designed to prevent the theft of a vehicle by blocking the flow of hydraulic fluid in hydraulic steering systems, so that the vehicle cannot be steered. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my office, you explained that your device is to be installed on vehicles in the aftermarket, and will not be installed as original equipment on new vehicles. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss our laws and their applicability to your device. By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, it is misleading and incorrect to state, as does page 2 of the 'Summary from Originating Country' enclosed with your letter, that this device has been 'approved by the USA.' Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of their products conforms with all applicable safety standards. In this instance, there are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for devices that block the flow of hydraulic fluid in hydraulic steering systems. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a product would not have to certify that a device that blocks the flow of hydraulic fluid in steering systems complies with any safety standards before offering it for sale to the public. However, the addition of this device to a vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public could affect the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently attach a label to each of their new vehicles stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.4. The certification regulation also sets forth requirements for persons who modify previously certified vehicles by adding, modifying, or substituting readily attachable components or who modify vehicles so that the stated weight ratings are no longer valid. Such persons are considered 'alterers' of the previously certified vehicles. Alterers are required to leave the original manufacturer's label in place and affix an additional label identifying the alterer and stating that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7. While your letter gave no details about how this device would be installed on a vehicle, it seems highly unlikely that a device would be treated as 'readily attachable' if it requires the installation of separate lines to carry hydraulic fluid between itself and the power steering unit. Thus, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards with this device installed. After the first sale to the public, persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2). That section provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' To avoid a 'rendering inoperative' violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, you should examine the proposed installation instructions for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a 'rendering inoperative' of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your device, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either: (1) repair the product so that the defect is removed, or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect. Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that state laws may apply to the use of your device. For further information on state laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5388OpenMr. Alberto Negro Chief Executive Officer Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A. 39300 Country Club Drive Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473; Mr. Alberto Negro Chief Executive Officer Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A. 39300 Country Club Drive Farmington Hills MI 48331-3473; Dear Mr. Negro: This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, asking i Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection 'allows the advisory information required by ... S4.5.1 to be printed in English and also in one or more foreign languages.' On March 10, 1994, NHTSA published a notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of the September 2, 1993 final rule which amended Standard No. 208 to require air bag labels (59 FR 11200). In that notice NHTSA stated: NHTSA interprets the labeling requirements of the September 2 final rule as requiring manufacturers to supply the information in English. Once this requirement is met, manufacturers may supply the same information in other languages, so long as it does not confuse consumers. As long as the non-English language label is a translation of the required information, NHTSA does not interpret it to be 'other information.' However, manufacturers are not permitted to include additional information in the non-English label. I am enclosing a copy of that notice for your information. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting 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.