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: aiam0632OpenMr. Harold E. Krause, Vice-President, Zecol Inc., P.O. Box 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201; Mr. Harold E. Krause Vice-President Zecol Inc. P.O. Box 1100 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53201; Dear Mr. Krause: In response to your letter of February 28, I enclose a copy of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*, which became effective March 1, 1972.; Paragraph S5.2 as amended specifies the appropriate labeling fo containers of fluid manufactured on or after March 1. If the labeled on containers in stock do not meet the new requirements, you may affix a conforming gummed label over them.; I recommend that you subscribe to the Federal Register ($25.00 pe year, from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402). Which contains all Federal regulations as issued or proposed on a daily basis. As a manufacturer in a regulated industry. it is your responsibility to be completely familiar with all applicable regulations. The Superintendent of Documents can also provide you with a subscription service to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ($8.00 per year), updated as new regulations are issued.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4108OpenPeter M. Kopanon, Director, Vehicle Inspection Services, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, 100 Nashua Street, Boston, MA 02114; Peter M. Kopanon Director Vehicle Inspection Services Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles 100 Nashua Street Boston MA 02114; Dear Mr. Kopanon: This responds to your March 19, 1986 letter to our office concernin Federal preemption of state motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Previously, you had requested us to clarify the language of section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We responded by letter dated March 24, 1986, which explained the phrase 'procured for the State's own use.' Your current letter focuses specifically on requirements for school bus mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, and asks whether Massachusetts could require an additional mirror on school buses owned by the state and its political subdivisions to enhance the view of school bus operator (sic).; The answer to your question is yes. As explained in our March 2 letter, under S103(d) of the Safety Act, a state may establish safety requirements for motor vehicles procured for its own use if such requirements impose the same or higher standard of performance than the Federal standard. The phrase 'higher standard of performance' means that the state standard must not conflict with the Federal standard, but may contain additional or more stringent requirements. Massachusetts may thus require an additional mirror on its school buses that provides greater views of areas in front of and along sides of the bus. This requirement, however, must not conflict with Federal requirements and prevent the school buses from complying with Federal safety standards.; We explained in our March 24 letter that states may not prescrib safety standards for privately-owned school buses transporting children to private and parochial schools that are not identical to the Federal safety standards covering the same aspects of performance. Your current letter asked further about Massachusetts' requirement that school committees (which we understand to be political subdivisions of the state) provide equal pupil transportation to public, private and parochial schools. You asked whether buses procured to fulfill this mandate are 'procured for the state's own use,' even though the buses would be used to transport students to private and parochial schools.; In our opinion, the answer is yes. NHTSA has interpreted the phras 'procured for its own use' to apply to any vehicle intended for transporting the public which is procured by a state or political subdivision thereof. Buses procured by the state to transport students to private and parochial schools are thus 'procured for the state's own use,' and may be required by Massachusetts to have additional mirrors to promote the safety of the school children they carry. We note, of course, that we suggest no position as to the constitutionality of state law.; I hope we have responded to your concerns. Please contact my office i you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3337OpenMr. Ray W. Houseal, Osterlund, Inc., 7389 Paxton Street, P.O. Box 4376, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111; Mr. Ray W. Houseal Osterlund Inc. 7389 Paxton Street P.O. Box 4376 Harrisburg Pennsylvania 17111; Dear Mr. Houseal: This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicl identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number*.; The National Highway traffic SAfety Administration does not giv advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards 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: aiam4558OpenVicky Johnson, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel Kansas Department of Transportation 7th Floor, Docking State Office Bldg. Topeka, Kansas 66612-1568; Vicky Johnson Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel Kansas Department of Transportation 7th Floor Docking State Office Bldg. Topeka Kansas 66612-1568; "Dear Ms. Johnson: This is a response to your letter asking for m comments on a school transportation issue that has arisen in Kansas. I apologize for the delay in this response. You explained that, in the past, many school districts in your State used vans with more than ten seating positions to transport school children, even though these vehicles were not certified as meeting Federal school bus standards. According to your letter, you informed those school districts that there are 'civil liability risks' associated with transporting students in vehicles that do not meet Federal school bus standards. Further, you said you informed those districts that a manufacturer or dealer who sells a school district a bus that is not a certified school bus may be in violation of Federal law. According to your letter, most of those school districts now recognize the 'considerable risks' associated with this practice. You are concerned that some of these districts are now purchasing the same vehicles that were previously certified as buses, but the vehicles now have only ten seating positions. Accordingly, the vehicles are now certified by the manufacturer as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). You believe that this situation is not a violation of Federal law because dealers are no longer selling school districts 'buses' that are not certified as school buses. However, you believe there is still a considerable risk of civil liability for the school districts in the event of a crash. You asked for our comments on this practice. Generally speaking, there is no violation of Federal law when a dealer sells a properly certified MPV to a school district. On the other hand, NHTSA has maintained a long-standing position that if a dealer sells an MPV or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, that dealer is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with all applicable school bus standards. (40 FR 60033, 60034, December 31, 1975.) For example, let us assume that a dealer sells a school district a vehicle that is certified as an MPV by its manufacturer. The vehicle has ten designated seating positions when it is delivered to the dealer, but is large enough to accommodate an additional bench seat, which would result in the vehicle having at least 13 designated seating positions. In this instance, a dealer who sells such a vehicle to a school district would have violated the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) against selling vehicles that do not comply with all applicable safety standards. In essence, NHTSA has concluded that a dealer may not legally sell a school district a vehicle that is capable of being converted into a school bus, unless: 1. that vehicle is certified as complying with applicable school bus standards, or 2. the dealer has reason to believe that the buyer has no intent of converting and using the vehicle as a school bus. If the dealer is uncertain of the buyer's intent, the agency has suggested that the dealer request a written statement of purpose from the buyer. (Id.) The agency has taken this position because the dealer frequently is the person in the distribution chain with the best knowledge of how a buyer intends to use a vehicle. Applying this reasoning to the situations described in your letter, the dealers selling MPVs to school districts might have done so in violation of Federal law. If the MPVs in question were capable of being converted into school buses, and the dealer had reason to believe that the purchasing school district intended to convert the vehicles to school buses, the dealer could only sell the MPV to the school district if the vehicles were certified as conforming to all applicable school bus standards. Your letter did not provide enough information for us to offer an opinion on any such potential liability. If you know of instances where a dealer may have sold vehicles to a school district under circumstances such as I describe here, please report this information to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, Room 6113, NEF-30 at the address on this letterhead. With respect to your question about the risk of civil liability in the event one of these vehicles is in a crash, that is a question of State, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how the matter would be resolved under Kansas law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Kansas to get an opinion about how the laws of Kansas would apply in such a situation. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3767OpenMr. Lee Jay Mandell, President, LJM Associates, Inc., 22030 Lanark Street, Canoga Park, CA 91034; Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President LJM Associates Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park CA 91034; Dear Mr. Mandell: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1983, discussing lighting product that you have developed and asking for 'the approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.'; Your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rea lights to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, your device operates by lights spreading from the center of the panel outward, in either or both directions.; We think that there is great potential for confusion that this devic could create since it is so unlike anything seen before on a motor vehicle. In the stopping mode the driver following will see the steady light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, but also the dynamic lights of your device spreading out from the center. The same dynamic light spread is seen but is meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously in the hazard warning mode. Thus, the potential for impairment of the required lighting equipment exists.; Generally, we do not favor any lights on the rear of a vehicle that ar not required by the Federal lighting standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2875OpenMr. Ken Yoneyama, Chief Engineer, Bridgestone Research Inc., 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4202, New York, New York 10001; Mr. Ken Yoneyama Chief Engineer Bridgestone Research Inc. 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4202 New York New York 10001; Dear Mr. Yoneyama: This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1978, askin whether tires listed in Table 1-A of Appendix A, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars*, must comply with Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards*, (UTQGS), if the tires are installed as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. You also inquire as to the effective dates for the provision of UTQGS information to first purchasers of new motor vehicles under Part 575.104(d) (1) (iii).; UTQGS applies to a tire type whose predominant contemplated use is o passenger cars, even if the manufacturer knows the tire type is also used as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A manufacturer's determination to certify a tire as conforming to Standard No. 109, will also determine the tire's classification for purposes of UTQGS. Thus, UTQGS would apply to any tire labeled with a size designation listed in Appendix A of Standard no.l 109, other than a deep tread, winter-type snow tire or space-saver or temporary use spare tire, regardless of the tire's actual use.; On October 23, 1978, NHTSA issued a *Federal Register* notice (cop enclosed) granting the petition of American Motors Corporation to revise the effective dates for Part 575.105(d) (1) (iii) to September 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 1, 1980 for bias-belted tires. On the basis of this change, your statement regarding effective dates is correct.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0848OpenMr. Gorou Utsunomiya, Chief, Liaison Engineer in U.S., 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Gorou Utsunomiya Chief Liaison Engineer in U.S. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Utsunomiya: This is in reply to your letter of August 8, 1972, enclosing sketche of motor vehicles and asking into which vehicle category under the motor vehicle safety standards they fall. The numbered paragraphs below correspond to those in your letter.; >>>1. Figures 1, 2, and 3 illustrate trailers under the standards Trailers are presently subject only to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.' Trailers equipped with air brakes and manufactured after September 1, 1974, will be required to conform to Standard No. 121, 'Air Brake Systems.' It is unlikely that many camping or recreational trailers will be subject to these requirements.; 2. Figure 4 illustrates two pickup trucks equipped with slide-i campers. Pickup trucks must conform to all standards applicable to trucks. The campers must conform, as you state, to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials.' Both pickup trucks and slide-in campers will be required to conform to a new Standard No. 126, 'Truck- Camper Loading,' when that standard becomes effective. A copy of the standard is enclosed.; 3. In referring to the illustrations of the pickup trucks equipped wit slide-in campers, you ask whether the requirements applicable to the trucks when combined with a camper are different from those applicable when the truck is not so equipped. The answer is no. The standards applicable to pickup trucks (those that are applicable to 'trucks') are the same whether or not the pickup is equipped with a camper.; 4. The requirements for pickup trucks and slide-in campers do no differ if both components are manufactured by the same company.; 5. Wagon campers and motor homes are considered to be multi-purpos passenger vehicles when constructed on truck chassis. The illustrations you enclose appear to us to represent vehicles manufactured on truck chassis.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2526OpenMr. R. M. Premo, Director, Vehicle Safety Activities, Sheller- Globe Corporation, 355 St. Johns Road, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. R. M. Premo Director Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller- Globe Corporation 355 St. Johns Road Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Premo: This responds to your February 8, 1977, question whether the use of front-row two-passenger bench seat with a three-passenger seat back requires a forward restraining barrier for two or three designated seating positions according to the requirements of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; The NHTSA answered this question on February 22, 1977, in response to request for an interpretation from Blue Bird Body Company. I am enclosing a copy of that interpretation for your information. You will note that Blue Bird accomplished the modification of the front-row seat by the installation of a two-passenger bench seat. As the interpretation indicates, the NHTSA requires a restraining barrier only in front of designated seating positions.; You also ask what procedure is required to obtain approval from th NHTSA for a particular Front-row seat design. Although the agency does not give formal 'approval' of designs, it is willing to give an opinion as to whether your design appears to satisfy the requirements of the standard. We require that you submit full detail (including pictures if possible) of the proposed design. In particular, we would like to know how you intend to render the excess 13 inches of frame permanently inoperative as a seating position. We would also be interested to know why you cannot install a two-passenger bench seat to obviate the problem of excess seat frame.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5349OpenMr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York State Bus Distributors Ass'n 102 Grace Street Penn Yan NY 14527; Mr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York State Bus Distributors Ass'n 102 Grace Street Penn Yan NY 14527; Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your request of April 13, 1994 for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You reference paragraphs S5.5.7(a) and (b) which apply to vehicles of less than 80 inches overall width and ask whether there are similar requirements for wider vehicles. Paragraph S5.5.7(a) requires that ' w hen the parking lamps are activated, the tail lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated.' There is no similar requirement for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more because these vehicles are not required to have parking lamps (see Table I of Standard No. 108). Paragraph S5.5.7(b) requires that ' w hen the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the tail lamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps and side marker lamps shall also be activated.' Paragraph S5.5.3 requires tail lamps on all vehicles, regardless of width, to be activated when the headlamps are activated in a steady burning state. As noted in the preceding paragraph, wide vehicles are not required to have parking lamps. This leaves the question of license plate lamps and side marker lamps. As you have surmised, there is no specific requirement in Standard No. 108 that these lamps be simultaneously activated with the headlamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or greater. However, we understand that it is industry practice to wire its large vehicles in this manner. We also believe that those who do not wire the side marker lamps to operate with the headlamps include them in the separate switch that activates the clearance and identification lamps. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2176OpenMr. Jack Gromer, Timpte, Inc., 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, CO 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Timpte Inc. 5990 N. Washington Street Denver CO 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to Timpte's December 10, 1975, question whethe modification of a certified trailer prior to retail sale constitutes the manufacture of a vehicle subject to applicable safety standards such as Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; The answer to your question is no. From your description, it appear that the proposed modification would be an alteration of a certified vehicle subject to S 567.7 of NHTSA certification regulations (49 CFR S 567.7) (copy enclosed). Under that section, conformity of the vehicle as altered need only be to standards in effect at the time the originally certified trailer was manufactured.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.