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: aiam4109OpenMr. Arnold Spencer, P.O. Box 516, Rockledge, FL 32955; Mr. Arnold Spencer P.O. Box 516 Rockledge FL 32955; Dear Mr. Spencer: This responds to your March 11, 1986 letter to this office askin several questions about the applicability of our school bus regulations to vans. In a March 5 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained your concern with Florida's position against use of conventional vans on school-related activities. While you were aware that it would be more appropriate to discuss your suggestions for changing Florida's laws with state officials, you requested us to clarify our regulations for school buses. Your letter included several specific questions about our school bus requirements.; From the correspondence enclosed with your letter, we understand tha Florida's concern over school bus safety resulted in a prohibition against school boards' condoning the transportation of students to school related events in vans that do not meet Federal or State school bus safety standards. This prohibition applies to school-owned vehicles as well as to vehicles owned by parents wishing to transport their children to extracurricular activities. Florida does not prevent parents from transporting children in their vans if the transportation is not sponsored or required by the school board and if parents assume responsibility for carrying school children.; Before I respond to your specific questions, some background discussio on our school bus regulations would be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to regulate the manufacture and sale of all new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under the Vehicle Safety Act we issued comprehensive motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and fuel systems. Under Federal law, a 'school bus' is defined as a bus (i.e., a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, driver included) sold for purposes that include carrying students to or from school or related events (common carriers in urban transportation excluded). Federal law requires all manufacturers to certify that each new school bus complies with our school bus safety standards and requires persons selling new school buses to ensure that only certified vehicles are sold. Any person who fails to comply with the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act is subject to civil penalties under the Act.; In addition, NHTSA has a separate set of recommendations for stat pupil transportation programs which was issued under the Highway Safety Act. Those recommendations are found in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed), and include guidelines for school bus identification, maintenance, and driver training. Each state determines how it will include Program Standard No. 17's guidelines in its highway safety program, and individual states have chosen to adopt some or all aspects of the standard. Florida state officials would be able to explain state implementation of Program Standard No. 17, if you are interested in further information.; Your first question asked whether we have any regulation that prohibit parents or booster club members from transporting children or students to school sponsored events in their own vehicles.; The answer to your question is no. As explained above, our requirement apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Manufacturers of new school buses certify their vehicles to our school bus safety standards and persons selling new school buses sell only complying school buses. NHTSA does not regulate users of motor vehicles, such as schools, parents, or any other vehicle owner, and we have no prohibition against vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. However, states have authority to set requirements for vehicles used to transport school children. If Florida wishes to sanction use of only complying school buses to transport its school children, it may do so. Its recommendation that school boards not condone transporting school children in noncomplying vehicles is consistent with our belief that school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children.; Your second question asked whether NHTSA has any regulation applicabl to state boards of education or booster club members when they purchase or lease a bus or multipurpose passenger vehicle for carrying school children to school-related events.; The answer to this question is no. As explained in our response to you first question, NHTSA's requirements apply to persons selling or leasing new school buses for school-related events, not to purchasers or users of school buses. However, I would like to emphasize that Federal law requires dealers who know that a new bus will be used to transport students to school-related events to sell complying school buses. The Safety Act's prohibition against selling new noncomplying vehicles or introducing them into interstate commence (sic) also requires dealers who *lease* new buses for school-related events to lease complying school buses.; Your next several questions concerned NHTSA's definitions fo 'passenger vehicles,' and 'conventional vans' of varying passenger capacities.; We assume that by 'passenger vehicle' you are referring to a 'passenge car.' NHTSA's definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards, found at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571.3, defines a 'passenger car' as: 'a motor vehicle ... except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.'; You asked for our definition of a 'conventional van' and also asked ho we would classify a passenger van that carries 10 or fewer persons. Vans designed to transport passengers are classified by us as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses, depending on the number of persons they are designed to carry. A van which carries 10 or fewer persons and is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off- road operation is considered an MPV.; A 'bus' is defined by us as a motor vehicle designed for carrying mor than 10 persons. Thus, a van designed to carry more than 10 persons is considered a bus. New buses, including the 11 to 15 passenger vans you referred to, sold to carry school children must comply with our school bus safety standards.; Your final question concerned the applicability of our school bu regulations to privately-owned family vehicles used by parents to carry their children to or from school. NHTSA does not consider those vehicles subject to our school bus safety standards. The House Committee Report on the Vehicle Safety Act amendments directing NHTSA to issue school bus safety standards stated that '(p)rivate motor vehicles used to carry members of the owner's household or other students in a carpool arrangement' were among the types of motor vehicles not meant to come within the scope of the amendments. (House Report 93-1191, page 42.) Therefore, persons selling new buses or any other type of vehicle for family use would not be under an obligation to sell complying school buses.; I hope this information clarifies our requirements for school buses Congressman Bill Nelson's office contacted us by letter dated March 4, 1986, with respect to your inquiry. I will send the Congressman a copy of this response for his information.; Please contact my office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3336OpenMr. Brian Gill, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 100 W. Alondra Blvd., P.O. Box 50, Gardena, California 90247; Mr. Brian Gill American Honda Motor Co. Inc. 100 W. Alondra Blvd. P.O. Box 50 Gardena California 90247; Dear Mr. Gill: This will confirm your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of m office concerning the conformance of the numbering on the VIN plate you submitted 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 regulation, 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 the VIN plate you submitted. The numbering on the VIN plate apparently complies with the legibility requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4559OpenLance E. Tunick, Esq. Vice President and General Counsel Maserati Automobiles, Inc. 1501 Caton Avenue Baltimore, MD 21227; Lance E. Tunick Esq. Vice President and General Counsel Maserati Automobiles Inc. 1501 Caton Avenue Baltimore MD 21227; "Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your October 20, 1988 letter, i which you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). More specifically, you noted that section S4.1.3 requires a specified percentage of a manufacturer's annual production to be equipped with automatic occupant protection. You stated that some vehicles imported into the United States may subsequently be exported to Canada. Since section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5), the Safety Act) specifies that none of the safety standards apply to vehicles intended solely for export, your company assumes that it should not include vehicles subsequently exported to Canada in its annual production totals when determining compliance with S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208. This assumption is incorrect, as explained below. In a September 4, 1985 letter to Messrs. Stephen Waimey and Dean Hansell (copy enclosed), we answered the question of how manufacturers that produce cars outside the United States should calculate their annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208. That letter explains that foreign-based manufacturers should count the number of vehicles that were produced and certified for sale in the United States, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, during the relevant time period to determine their annual production for the purposes of Standard No. 208. Your letter referred to section 108(b)(5) of the Safety Act, and suggested that this statutory provision means that any vehicles that are imported into the United States and subsequently exported to a different country should not be counted as part of the manufacturer's annual production. I am happy to explain our view of what is permitted under that statutory provision. Section 108(b)(5) provides that the requirements in the safety standards 'shall not apply in the case of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported.' This statutory language establishes three separate conditions that would have to be satisfied to exclude a vehicle from the requirements of the safety standards, including the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for purposes of Standard No. 208. These three conditions are: 1. The vehicle must be intended solely for export, 2. The vehicle must have a label or tag on it at the time it is imported which shows that the vehicle is intended solely for export, and 3. The vehicle must actually be exported. We agree with your contention that a vehicle satisfying all three of these conditions would not be subject to the requirements of any of the safety standards, and could properly be excluded from the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for the purposes of Standard No. 208. For a similar interpretation regarding imported tires that are intended solely for export and so labeled, see the enclosed November 10, 1975 letter to Mr. John B. White. Of course, it would not be sufficient if only one of these conditions, such as the third one regarding actual exportation, were satisfied. We are uncertain regarding the facts surrounding the vehicles that have already been imported into the United States and then exported to Canada and thus are unable to give an opinion concerning their satisfaction of the section 108(b)(5) conditions. It should be relatively simple for you to determine whether these vehicles satisfied the first two conditions. Did those vehicles truly just pass through the US on their way to Canada? To what country's standards were those vehicles certified and when? When the vehicles were imported into the United States, your company was required to complete a Form HS-7. That form allows the importer to declare that a vehicle is intended solely for export and that the vehicle bears a label or tag to that effect. What type of declaration was made with respect to the vehicles in question? As to vehicles which Maserati Automobiles, Inc., wishes in the future to import into this country and pass directly through to Canada for sale there, satisfaction of each of the three section 108(b)(5) conditions will assure that the vehicles are not included in the Standard No. 208 calculations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3766OpenMr. Pekka Suuronen, Product Development Manager, Racemark International, Inc., P.O. Box 82, Burnt Hills, NY 12027; Mr. Pekka Suuronen Product Development Manager Racemark International Inc. P.O. Box 82 Burnt Hills NY 12027; Dear Mr. Suuronen: This is in reply to your letters of July 27, 1983, and October 6, 1983 asking whether a sealed headlamp with 'replaceable European H4 bulb' or 'Ford bulb (6 standard sizes)' are considered 'legal,' (like Cibie BOBI) 'provided it meets with all the applicable SAE standards.'; Cibie certifies that its 'BOBI' headlamp complies with all applicabl Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus far, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not contested that certification.; We do not understand your reference to the Ford bulb in '6 standar sizes.' The only size of that bulb that may be used in the new replaceable bulb headlamp systems is the one specified in the recent amendment to Standard No. 108. However, Volkswagen has petitioned for rulemaking to allow the H4 bulb.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0849OpenMr. Gorou Utsunomiya, Chief, Liaison Engineer in U.S., 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 402, Southfield, Michigan 48075; Mr. Gorou Utsunomiya Chief Liaison Engineer in U.S. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 402 Southfield Michigan 48075; Dear Mr. Utsunomiya: This is in reply to your letter of August, 1972, enclosing sketches o motor vehicles and asking into which category under the motor vehicles 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 manu 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 illustration you enclose appear to us to represent vehicles manufactured on truck chassis.<<<; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2874OpenMr. Neil McCormick, Colorado Department of Education, 201 E. Colfax, State Office Building, Denver, CO 80203; Mr. Neil McCormick Colorado Department of Education 201 E. Colfax State Office Building Denver CO 80203; Dear Mr. McCormick: This responds to your September 22, 1978, letter asking whether th Federal government has any school bus safety standards that would prevent the State of Colorado from regulating in two areas.; A State is not permitted to have any regulation concerning an area o safety regulated by the Federal government unless the State regulation is identical to the Federal standard or imposes a higher standard of care than the Federal regulation and applies only to vehicles purchased for use by the State. With respect to the body diagonal strength test proposed in your letter, the agency does not regulate that aspect of performance. Therefore, the State of Colorado is permitted to regulate this aspect as long as its regulation does not conflict with any Federal standard.; Your second proposal would define 'activity bus' in a manner that woul except it from State requirements for lighting and color but would continue to require it to be constructed in accordance with the Federal school bus safety standards. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly granted activity buses the option of meeting all of the color and marking requirements for school buses or none of those requirements. That standard has been changed with respect to this option. All activity buses manufactured after April 1, 1978, must comply with all of the requirements applicable to school buses including the color and lighting requirements. Therefore, it is the opinion of the agency that your proposed definition of activity bus would conflict with Standard No. 17.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2527OpenMr. A. J. Burgess, Lucas Industries North America, Inc., Two Northfield Plaza, Troy, Michigan 48084; Mr. A. J. Burgess Lucas Industries North America Inc. Two Northfield Plaza Troy Michigan 48084; Dear Mr. Burgess: This responds to your February 4, 1977, question whether Safet Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*, permits DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluids to be colored 'fluorescent yellow.'; The answer to your question is yes. paragraph S5.1.14 of Standard No 116 specified that DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids manufactured on or after September 1, 1978, shall be 'colorless to amber.' The agency interprets this color range to include any 'yellow,' whether or not fluorescent. Although not required, we consider fluorescence to be an added safety factor since it would facilitate the detection of leaks in the braking system.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5348OpenMr. David A. Scott President, RKS International L.L.C. 822 Wisconsin Avenue Racine, WI 53403; Mr. David A. Scott President RKS International L.L.C. 822 Wisconsin Avenue Racine WI 53403; Dear Mr. Scott: This responds to your letter of March 8, 1994, askin for information about this agency's regulations regarding importation and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. You intend to import 'fiberglass kit cars.' The cars may be imported 'either disassembled or partially assembled.' Your company 'will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S. for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires, etc.' It appears from your letter that you intend to import items of equipment, either individually or as part of a larger assembly, which, after entry into the United States, will have the drive train and related components installed that are necessary to complete its manufacture as a motor vehicle. For purposes of this interpretation, it is unimportant whether the equipment is imported as individual items, or assembled into a vehicle lacking a power train. Some items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). In order to be imported into the United States, they must comply with all applicable FMVSS. Passenger car equipment that must comply includes brake hoses, brake fluid, lamps and reflectors, tires, glazing material, and seat belt assemblies. It is mandatory that all these items (except lamps and reflectors) bear a DOT symbol in order to be imported, the symbol is the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the FMVSS. It is optional for lamps and reflectors to be marked with the DOT symbol. If they are not marked, permissible options include a certification statement attached to the equipment item or on the container in which the item is shipped. When assembly of the vehicle is completed in the United States, its assembler must satisfy itself that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS and affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies. I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It identifies relevant Federal statutes and this agency's standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. It also explains how to obtain this agency's safety standards and regulations. If you have further questions we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam2177OpenMr. J. E. Paquette, Director, Burlington Management Service Co., Greensboro, NC 27420; Mr. J. E. Paquette Director Burlington Management Service Co. Greensboro NC 27420; Dear Mr. Paquette: This responds to Burlington Fleet Service's December 9, 1975, questio whether the combination of usable parts from several existing vehicles into one functioning vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards such as Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; The answer to your question is no. For an assembly operation t constitute manufacture, there must be a substantial proportion of new or fundamentally rebuilt parts. In this case, no new parts, other than minor materials such as hoses and gaskets, are involved in the assembly. The NHTSA therefore, does not consider the operation to constitute manufacturing subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1381 et seq.); Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2462OpenMr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activities Staff, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your November 2, 1976, letter concerning th type of statement regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, that must be included in the incomplete vehicle document supplied by General Motors Corporation along with its Cadillac commercial chassis.; You have essentially repeated the argument of your August 24, 1976 letter to me, in which you disagreed with the interpretation of 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, that appeared in my July 20, 1976, letter to you. My letter explained that Part 568 prohibits the use by General Motors of a 'type (iii)' statement with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document.; Both of your letters emphasize the significant effects that the work o the final-stage manufacturer has on the capability of the completed vehicle to conform to Standard No. 301-75. The NHTSA is mindful of the significance of these effects, and has never suggested that the final-stage manufacturer's work would *not* substantially determine the vehicle's conformity with the standard. Both of your letters erroneously conclude, however, that because the work of the final-stage manufacturer '*will* substantially determine such conformity' (your emphasis), 'the design of such an incomplete vehicle many times *will not substantially determine* conformity...' (your emphasis). This conclusion ignores the interpretation in our letter that, with regard to the vehicles in question, conformity is '*substantially determined by both* the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer' (emphasis added). The NHTSA stands by this position.; As you have requested, the letters discussed above have been include in Docket No. EX76-3, Notice 2.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting 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.