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: aiam2390OpenMr. Bing Johnson, 135 Jade Cove Drive, Roswell, GA 30075; Mr. Bing Johnson 135 Jade Cove Drive Roswell GA 30075; Dear Mr. Johnson: This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1976, in which you as about our regulations concerning the modification of 'vans' to make them suitable for camping. The modifications you propose to make include the installation of plumbing, water, electricity, and additional seating.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1381 *et seq*.) prohibits the manufacture, offer for sale, sale, introduction in interstate commerce or importation of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. This prohibition does not apply (except for importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Under these provisions, you are responsible for the compliance of any vehicle that you modify up to and including the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale.; The manufacturer must comply with all applicable safety standard established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). His certification appears on a completed vehicle. It would be your responsibility to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards after your modifications. Under Part 567 of our regulations, you must attach a label to the vehicle that states that, as altered, the vehicle continued to conform to the standards.; From the description of the modifications you describe, it appears tha you might affect the compliance of the vehicle with the following standards: Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, and Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. It should be noted that any additional weight created by your modifications or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.; We also would point out that if you modify a Ford 'Econoline' in al probability you would change the vehicle classification from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle. This should be noted on the certification label that you attach to the vehicle.; I have enclosed an information sheet that explains where you may obtai copies of these regulations.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3352OpenMr. Martin V. Chauvin, Chief, Carrier Safety Bureau, Department of Transportation, State Campus, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12232; Mr. Martin V. Chauvin Chief Carrier Safety Bureau Department of Transportation State Campus 1220 Washington Avenue Albany NY 12232; Dear Mr. Chauvin: This responds to your August 5, 1980, letter asking why it might not b possible for a manufacturer to certify a vehicle in compliance with the school bus safety standards if that vehicle transports 10 persons or less. You state that you would like the smaller sized vehicles to be constructed with the same safety features as larger school buses.; First, we would like to note that the school bus safety standards wer originally applied only to the larger sized vehicles (more than 10 persons) because the larger sized vehicles were not previously required to comply with many of our safety standards. On the other hand, most of our standards apply to vehicles transporting 10 persons or less. Since these small vehicles were extensively regulated it was determined to be unnecessary to apply school bus safety standards to them.; In response to your particular question, a vehicle transporting 1 persons or less is a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), not a bus or a school bus. A manufacturer is required by this agency to certify such a vehicle in compliance with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles. This certification statement must be made on the vehicle's certification label. Therefore, a manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a school bus in compliance with the school bus safety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category (more than 10 persons).; New York should not attempt to issue a regulation that would requir multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with all school bus safety standards. Some of those standards might conflict with other Federal safety standards applicable to MPV's and would, therefore, be preempted. For example, the school bus seating standard could not be applied to MPV's because their seating is regulated by other Federal safety standards. However, since MPV's are not presently regulated in the areas of emergency exits, joint strength, or roof crush, New York could have a regulation requiring MPV's used to transport children to comply with these performance standards now applicable only to school buses. The vehicles would still be required to be certified only to the safety standards applicable to MPV's, however.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4497OpenMr. James P. Nolan, Jr. President Nolan and Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc. 5 Laurel Avenue Northport, NY 11768; Mr. James P. Nolan Jr. President Nolan and Taylor-Howe Funeral Home Inc. 5 Laurel Avenue Northport NY 11768; "Dear Mr. Nolan: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1988 enclosing a letter you have received from the Department of Motor Vehicles, New York State, advising you that your l987 Cadillac hearse requires a center high-mounted stop lamp. You have asked for the specifications of such a lamp. The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars. A passenger car is defined as a motor vehicle 'designed for carrying l0 persons or less.' A 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is one 'designed for carrying l0 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off road operation.' A 'truck' is defined as a motor vehicle 'designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' The agency recognizes chassis constructed for commercial use, such as a hearse, as the equivalent of a truck chassis. The determination of vehicle category is initially that of the manufacturer or final stage assembler who certifies compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the category of vehicle selected. In our opinion, a hearse could be properly certified as a either a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle,' or a 'truck.' In a conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on April 29, you informed us that the first six characters of the VIN of your hearse are 'lGED09', and that its final stage assembler, Superior, had certified it as an 'MPV' (multipurpose passenger vehicle). The 'G' in the VIN identifies it, according to internal documents of the initial stage manufacturer, General Motors, as 'Cadillac Incomplete Coaches' (meaning, it would appear, funeral coaches), and the '9' as 'Cadillac Commercial Body/Chassis.' This chassis does not form the basis of any passenger car completed by Cadillac. The letter from New York State states 'The manufacturer claims that funeral cars are classified as multipurpose vehicles and do not require the lights.' This is correct, as you have told us that Superior has classified it as an MPV, and certified its compliance to all standards applicable to that vehicle category. As the center high-mounted stop lamp standard is not one of those applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles, there is no Federal requirement that your hearse be equipped with such a lamp. We appreciate your interest in safety, and trust that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1695OpenMr. John J. Relihan, Solomon, Relihan & Blake, Law Offices, Suite A, 1819 West Osborn Road, Phoenix, AZ 85015; Mr. John J. Relihan Solomon Relihan & Blake Law Offices Suite A 1819 West Osborn Road Phoenix AZ 85015; Dear Mr. Relihan: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1974, requesting ou comments on a memorandum from Mr. Kevin Tighe stating that a disclosure form developed by him had been approved by the Department of Transportation for use in satisfying the requirements of the odometer disclosure regulation (49 CFR Part 580).; No formal approval of the disclosure form contained in the Tigh memorandum was ever given by the Department of Transportation. Mr. Tighe arrived at the format and discussed its contents at one point with this agency, but specific authorization for its use was never given. The disclosure form suggested by Mr. Tighe was not previously considered as constituting a violation of the odometer disclosure regulations. Over the past year it has become apparent that disclosure forms not printed in the manner prescribed in the regulation have been responsible for misleading buyers who are confused by their ambiguous format. These forms have also been abused by certain sellers who rely on their ambiguity in misrepresenting the accuracy of a vehicle's odometer. Due to this situation, the NHTSA has concluded that a stricter interpretation of the odometer regulation is necessary in order to fulfill the Act's intended purpose.; Our recent correspondence with you indicating the noncompliance of th disclosure form you enclosed should not be interpreted as citing a violation of the Act. Our determination of a noncompliance is not retroactive, since we previously gave a broader interpretation to the disclosure form requirements. The format used on the disclosure document submitted by you for our review will in the future be considered as not satisfying the requirements of the disclosure regulation. Past use of these forms, however, is not considered violative of the Act.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam0987OpenMr. Ross M. Smith, Midwest Business Forms, Inc., 4900 North River Road, Schiller Park, IL 60176; Mr. Ross M. Smith Midwest Business Forms Inc. 4900 North River Road Schiller Park IL 60176; Dear Mr. Smith: This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1973, concerning th odometer disclosure form that you propose to print in accordance with the Federal odometer Disclosure Requirements, 49 CFR 580.; As you indicate, the proposed form conforms in all respects to the for specified in S 580.6, except that it provides additional space for the State and year of the last plate. We find that these items will help identify a vehicle, and that their inclusion is consistent with the purpose of the form. We therefore do not object to their inclusion on the form.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3702OpenMr. Roger E. Maugh, Director, Automotive Safety Office, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. Roger E. Maugh Director Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; Dear Mr. Maugh: This responds to your letter of June 2, 1983, regarding Ford's desir to equip 2,500 of its vehicles with Securiflex windshields to obtain field data regarding glass- plastic glazing. You state that such a test fleet would provide Ford with information regarding concerns it has about in-plant handling, vehicle assembly, mirror attachment, haze, scratching, delamination durability, and performance in accidents.; As you are probably aware, General Motors made a similar reques regarding a test fleet of Securiflex windshields last fall. We can give Ford the same assurances that were given to General Motors in response to their request. Under the limited and special circumstances of the field test described in your letter, the agency can firmly state that it would not enforce the abrasion requirement of Safety Standard No. 205 as it now stands since it does not appear to be appropriate for technology like the Securiflex windshield (Securiflex apparently cannot pass the existing abrasion requirements). That technology was developed after the standard was originally issued, and the standard did not contemplate assymetrical (sic) glazing of this type. Equally important, the agency notes that all current information indicates that glass- plastic glazing does have a great potential for reducing lacerative injuries in accidents. The experimental use which you propose should provide valuable information regarding injury reduction and some of the remaining problems which do appear to exist with regard to this type windshield. We also note your statement that the Securiflex windshields you plan to install on the test fleet would comply with the proposed requirements for glass-plastic glazing issued by the agency March 10, 1983 (48 FR 10097).; In light of the agency's policy decision to foster the use of ne safety technology by permitting the field test you propose, the agency expects your company to monitor closely the test fleet and to rectify any problems that may develop. Ford would, of course, remain responsible for meeting its obligation under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding any safety related defects. The agency also expects to be apprised of all information that Ford obtains from this field test.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed, Acting Administrator |
|
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: aiam5286OpenMr. C.N. Littler Coordinator-Regulatory Affairs MCI/TMC Engineering Centre 1558 Willson Place Winnepeg, Manitoba R3T 0Y4; Mr. C.N. Littler Coordinator-Regulatory Affairs MCI/TMC Engineering Centre 1558 Willson Place Winnepeg Manitoba R3T 0Y4; "Dear Mr. Littler: This responds to your FAX and phone call of July 30 1993 to Mary Versailles of my office. Your FAX enclosed information on a vehicle, the AMF Invader, which is built on a remanufactured MCI chassis, and advertised and sold as a new vehicle. You do not believe that such a vehicle should be considered a new vehicle. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, we can explain whether such a vehicle would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the implications of such a determination. I suggest you also contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it is appropriate to advertise this vehicle as new. To determine whether this vehicle can be titled and registered as new, you would have to contact the various states concerning their laws. By way of background information, 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 apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. 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. After a vehicle's first retail sale, a provision affecting its modification is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) which provides: 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. It is possible that modifications on an existing vehicle may be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle for purposes of compliance with the safety standards. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such modifications were completed. The agency has stated that a bus built with a new body is not considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle (see, for example, August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer). The agency has also stated that a bus constructed from an old body and a new chassis is a new vehicle (see, for example, July 17, 1981 letter to Mr. Larry Louderback). When neither the body nor the chassis are completely new, the agency looks to see if the vehicle has so deviated from the original components and attributes that it may be considered a new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a used vehicle (see, for example, April 22, 1991 letter to Mr. Kent Morris). You enclosed an article titled 'The New Invader' from the August 1993 issue of National Bus Trader magazine. The manufacturing process for the Invader is described beginning on page 14. Page 16 of this article states, 'the Invader is supplied with a new engine,' but the article does not contain enough information to determine whether the vehicle, which includes both new and old parts, would be considered new. If the Invader has a new body, NHTSA would considered the vehicle to be new if the chassis lacks the used components referenced in the Farmer letter. Any new vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture before the vehicle can be sold in the United States. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: AMF 1830 LeBer Street, Montreal Quebec, Canada H3K 2A4"; |
|
ID: aiam2543OpenMr. R. A. Bynum, Supervisor, Pupil Transportation Service, Commonwealth of Virginia, State Department of Education, Richmond, VA 23216; Mr. R. A. Bynum Supervisor Pupil Transportation Service Commonwealth of Virginia State Department of Education Richmond VA 23216; Dear Mr. Bynum: This responds to your February 18, 1977, letter asking whether Standar No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, permits the use of a two-passenger front-row seat with a corresponding two-passenger front-row restraining barrier. Secondly, you ask whether the State of Virginia can require the use in joints of discrete fasteners and welding, and not adhesives, without conflicting with the requirements of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*. Finally, you ask who must certify that a vehicle complies with Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*.; The NHTSA has issued an interpretation allowing the use of a two passenger front-row seat with a two-passenger restraining barrier. This can be accomplished by the use of a two-passenger seat cushion and a three-passenger seat back as you suggest. I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA interpretation for your information.; Regarding your second question concerning the use of adhesives in bu body joints, the Federal bus body joint standard requires only that joints meet a specified strength requirement. The NHTSA does not require any particular type of joint construction. Therefore, the purchaser and manufacturer can decide upon any method of joint construction as long as the joint meets Federal strength specifications.; Your final question asks who must certify that a small school bu (under 10,000 pounds) is in compliance with Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. To assign responsibility for the certification of multi-stage vehicles, NHTSA has issued Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages* (enclosed). The manufacturer of an 'incomplete-vehicle' (such as a cab-chassis) must provide documentation to the intermediate- and final-stage manufacturer of the vehicle on how to complete it so that it complies with all applicable standards. It is the responsibility of the final- stage manufacturer to affix a certification label unless the incomplete- or intermediate-stage manufacturer assumes this responsibility.; On a related matter concerning small school buses, it is ou understanding that school buses weighing under 10,000 pounds will be available after April 1, 1977.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0084OpenMr. George W. S. Smith, President, Ideal Manufacturing Company, 1107 South Seventh Street, Oskaloosa, IA 52577; Mr. George W. S. Smith President Ideal Manufacturing Company 1107 South Seventh Street Oskaloosa IA 52577; Dear Mr. Smith: Thank you for your letter of June 10, 1968, to Mr. J. O'Gorman of thi Bureau, concerning the requirements for side reflex reflectors as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.; As noted in your letter, paragraph S3.1.1.6 of Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1969, permits until January 1, 1970, the use of two side reflex reflectors on each side of vehicles that are less than 80 inches in overall width. On and after January 1, 1970, Standard No. 108 requires that these vehicles be equipped on each side with two side reflex reflectors and two side marker lamps.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
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.