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: aiam2478OpenMr. Joseph E. Papelian, Department of Police, Detroit, MI 48226; Mr. Joseph E. Papelian Department of Police Detroit MI 48226; Dear Mr. Papelian: This is in response to your letter of November 9, 1976, asking whethe Federal regulations permit manufacturers to equip police vehicles with 'push bumpers' and with bullet-proof shields located between the front and rear seating compartments.; Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, establishes requirements fo the impact resistance and the configuration of front and rear vehicle surfaces of passenger cars. This standard does not prohibit 'push bumpers' and manufacturers are free to equip passenger cars with any bumper design they choose as long as the requirements of Standard No. 215 are met.; Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, specifies requirements fo glazing for use in motor vehicles, including the permissible locations for the various types of glazing. The standard permits bullet-resistant glazing to be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, provided such glazing meets specified performance requirements. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are permitted to equip vehicles with the bullet-proof shields mentioned in your letter if such shields are constructed with glazing that conforms to the requirements in Standard No. 205.; You also asked whether the police department or a business coul install the equipment in question. If the equipment is installed after the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the Federal safety standards would no longer be applicable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(b)(1). However, S 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits, with one exception, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or element of design that has been installed in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard.; Therefore, whether or not a business could install the equipmen depends on the nature of the business. If the business is a 'motor vehicle repair business', it can only install the 'push bumpers' and shields if such installation does not knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) defines 'motor vehicle repair business' as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.; I have enclosed copies of Standard No. 205 and Standard No. 215. I hav underscored the pertinent sections of Standard No. 205 (and the ANS Z26 standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) for your information.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4955OpenWilliam F. Russo, Esquire Margolis, Sakayan & Holtz 915 Fifteenth St., N.W. Tenth Floor Washington, D.C. 20005-2302; William F. Russo Esquire Margolis Sakayan & Holtz 915 Fifteenth St. N.W. Tenth Floor Washington D.C. 20005-2302; "Dear Mr. Russo: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretatio of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210). Specifically, you were interested in the requirement in S4.1 that 'seat belt anchorages' for particular types of seat belts shall be installed at particular seating positions. You asked for an explanation of precisely what this requirement obliges a vehicle manufacturer to do. The term 'seat belt anchorage' is defined in S3 of Standard No. 210 as 'the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure.' When S4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires a 'seat belt anchorage' for a seat belt to be installed at a given seating position, the manufacturer must provide a point or points for that seating position that comply with the strength requirements of S4.2 applicable to that type of anchorage and with the location requirements of S4.3 applicable to that type of anchorage. The designated point may simply be a point on the vehicle structure (floor, sides, or roof), or a point on the seat itself, for instance. The point designated by the vehicle manufacturer in response to the requirement in S4.1 need not be a prepunched or prethreaded hole, it need not be visible, and it need not include the anchorage hardware. If the agency were seeking to impose these additional conditions on anchorages, it would have included specific language to that effect in the standard. See, for example, the proposal to amend Standard No. 210 at 45 FR 81625, December 11, 1980. When these additional conditions are not expressly set forth in the text of the standard, they are not required to be included as part of the anchorage at that seating position. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5647OpenMr. Ken Van Sciver Sciver Corporation Post Office Box 1283 Broomfield, CO 80038; Mr. Ken Van Sciver Sciver Corporation Post Office Box 1283 Broomfield CO 80038; "Dear Mr. Van Sciver: This responds to your letter of October 3, 199 to this office requesting information on any safety standards applicable to the Auto Bib, a new product you are developing and marketing. From the promotional material you furnished with your letter, your Auto Bib can be described as a portable cover, of Naugahyde fabric, that clips between the window and door molding of a vehicle's door. The Auto Bib unrolls downward to cover the door, and is intended to protect the door's upholstery from damage caused by children, pets, and the sun. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing and testing motor vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, or grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Turning now to the Auto Bib, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S.Code (U.S.C.), 30102(7)(B) as any 'part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle.' Specifically, the Auto Bib is an accessory if it meets two tests: a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, and b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. After reviewing the product literature you enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the Auto Bib is an accessory. The Auto Bib was designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor vehicles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the promotional literature makes it clear that the Auto Bib is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as distinguished from professional vehicle repair businesses, since its stated purpose is to preserve motor vehicle upholstery from damage by children, pets, and the sun. While the Auto Bib is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the manufacturer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30116 - 30121 which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. You asked about state or local requirements that may apply to your product. NHTSA has no information on such requirements. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information in that regard from: Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0145, Fax (202) 898-0148 I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2182OpenMr. John W. Kourik, Wagner Electric Corporation, Wagner Division, 11444 Lackland Road, St. Louis, MO 63141; Mr. John W. Kourik Wagner Electric Corporation Wagner Division 11444 Lackland Road St. Louis MO 63141; Dear Mr. Kourik: This responds to Wagner Electric Corporation's October 21, 1975 question whether a trailer would satisfy the requirements of S5.2.1.1 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, to provide a reservoir 'that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system,' if the reservoir provided is either of two service brake system reservoirs on the vehicle, equipped with a pressure protection valve directly adjacent to each reservoir. The drawings enclosed in your letter indicate that the 'protected tank' that is normally provided, separate from the service brake system, would be eliminated and either of the service brake system reservoirs would be used to satisfy S5.2.1.1 in the event of a parking brake application.; Your interpretation of S5.2.1.1 is correct. That section calls for reservoir of air as an energy source that is used to release the vehicle's parking brakes after an automatic or manual application. In requiring that this reservoir be 'unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system,' the NHTSA means that a single failure of the service brake system would not result in loss of this air supply. With the pressure protection valves located as described in your enclosures, it appears that the system would comply with Section S5.2.1.1.; This 'single failure' requirement must be distinguished from th requirement of S5.6.3 that the energy source for application of the parking brake be 'not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system.' The NHTSA has interpreted this requirement to require an uninterrupted energy source despite loss of all air pressure from the service brake system. We recognize that the language of the two passages is substantially identical, and should be changed for clarity.; In a recent proposal to revise the parking brake requirements of th standard (40 FR 56920, December 5, 1975), the NHTSA inadvertently failed to make this distinction clear in its newly-proposed definition of 'parking brake system' and intends to publish a correction of the proposal in the near future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0015OpenMs. Vel McCaslin Program Director Grace After School 10221 Ella Lee at Sam Houston Tollway Houston, Texas 77042; Ms. Vel McCaslin Program Director Grace After School 10221 Ella Lee at Sam Houston Tollway Houston Texas 77042; "Dear Ms. McCaslin: This responds to your letter of April 1, 199 requesting clarification of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) and Federal regulations at 49 CFR Part 571 as they apply to 15 passenger vans used to transport students from Houston Independent Schools to an After School Program at your church. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has used its authority under the Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of various types of new motor vehicles. One type is the school bus. NHTSA defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for purposes that include transporting students to and from 'school or school-related events.' Therefore, unless your program would be considered a 'school or school-related event,' your vehicles would not be considered 'school buses' under Federal law. In order for NHTSA to determine if your program would be considered a 'school or school-related event,' you would need to provide us with further information about your program. Under Federal law, the answer to the question of whether your buses are school buses bears on the legal obligations of the seller, but not those of the purchaser or user, of new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all Federal school bus safety standards if that person is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. However, it is not a violation of Federal law for the purchaser to buy or use a vehicle to transport school children that does not comply with all the Federal standards. Under State, and common law, whether your buses complied with the Federal standards may have legal significance for you as a vehicle user. Since the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles, you must look to Texas law to determine if your After School Program may use noncomplying vans to transport school children. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2028OpenHonorable George E. Danielson, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; Honorable George E. Danielson House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Mr. Danielson: This responds to your July 18, 1975, request for consideration of th view of Champ Corporation that its rough terrain forklift trucks do not qualify as 'motor vehicles' as they are defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.). Champ Corporation states that Federal motor vehicle safety standards for tires and tire selection cannot be complied with by these forklift trucks.; As you are aware, the Act defines 'motor vehicle' in S103(2) a follows:; >>>'Motor vehicle' means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanica power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<; In the case of the forklift trucks manufactured by Champ Corporation they generally are considered to be motor vehicles if they use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites, because their primary function is of a mobile work-performing nature that contemplates using the highway. However, three criteria have been established to justify a determination in some cases that these vehicle types do not qualify as motor vehicles:; >>>(1) That the vehicle is intended and sold strictly for off-road use unless the manufacturer knows that a substantial proportion of his customers actually use the vehicle on the highway,; (2) That the vehicle's maximum speed does not exceed 20 mph and it abnormal configuration distinguishes it from the traffic flow, or; (3) That the vehicle only uses the highway occasionally in th immediate periphery of the work site, as is the case with some farm and construction equipment.<<<; As you can see, only the manufacturer is in a position to make thes determinations of usage in most cases. Champ Corporation should therefore make its determination based on these criteria and the actual usage for which its products are intended and sold.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5217OpenMr. Alan Niedzwiecki Director of Business Development EDO Corporation 14-04 111th Street College Point, NY 11356-1434; Mr. Alan Niedzwiecki Director of Business Development EDO Corporation 14-04 111th Street College Point NY 11356-1434; "Dear Mr. Niedzwiecki: This responds to your letter requestin information about this agency's activities related to cylinders for 'compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle on- board motor fuel storage.' According to your letter, EDO is developing an all- composite cylinder that has a safety factor of 3.5. You further explained that your company is planning to begin a conversion program using these cylinders. Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff discussed your letter with your associate, Mr. John Vincenzo. Mr. Vincenzo said that EDO knows that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is conducting a rulemaking related to CNG cylinders. Mr. Vincenzo seeks confirmation that, until a rule results from that rulemaking, there is no Department of Transportation regulation with which your company is required to comply before you start your conversion program. By way of background information, 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, however, 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 any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such cylinders. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, you are correct that you are not required to comply with any NHTSA safety standard related to CNG fuel systems. However, 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. In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done. I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR 567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's 'render inoperative' provision (108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) 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. Please contact us if you have further questions relating to the enclosed discussion. I also note that the enclosed discussion is based on the FMVSS's that are currently in effect. As you know, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the 'render inoperative' issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders, 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 new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel. With regard to present requirements for vehicle conversions, you should also note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650. You were particularly interested in NHTSA's proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. In response to that proposal, the agency received over 55 comments (including one from your corporation), which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. In addition, please be aware that the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3269OpenMr. Barry Breslow, 120 Ryder Avenue, Dix Hills, NY 11746; Mr. Barry Breslow 120 Ryder Avenue Dix Hills NY 11746; Dear Mr. Breslow: This responds to your recent letter asking for information concernin the Federal and State regulations that would be applicable to conversions of gasoline-powered vehicles to run on LP gas. I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issued last August which discusses the Federal requirements and implications of such conversions. You will have to contact the individual States to find out any requirements they may have, however.; If you have any questions after reviewing the enclosed information feel free to contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202-426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1254OpenMr. Robert G. Beaumont, President, Sebring Vanguard, Inc., P.O. Box 1479, Sebring Air Terminal, Sebring, FL 33870; Mr. Robert G. Beaumont President Sebring Vanguard Inc. P.O. Box 1479 Sebring Air Terminal Sebring FL 33870; Dear Mr. Beaumont: We have received your letter of September 7, 1973, to Mr. Vinson wit its enclosures and appreciate your providing them.; In your 'memo' on purchase orders you state that Sebring Vanguard 'ha decided that our vehicles are multi- purpose vehicles.' The Vanguard, however, is not for purposes of the safety standards a multipurpose passenger vehicle, defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' (In a recent notice, copy enclosed, we have proposed a change in this definiton (sic) that would make it more restrictive.); The Vanguard as we understand it is a 'passenger car', defined as vehicle designed for carrying 10 passengers or less, other than a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer. Vehicle design, rather than actual usage, is the definitional determinant, and the fact that some purchasers of a Vanguard may use it off-road or as a replacement for MPV's does not change its category.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2881OpenMr. Joe Henry, Office of the Attorney General, State Capitol, Charleston, WV 25305; Mr. Joe Henry Office of the Attorney General State Capitol Charleston WV 25305; Dear Mr. Henry: This is in response to your telephone conversation with Kathy DeMete of my staff on October 11, 1978, concerning the Federal odometer law. You requested an interpretation of the first sentence in 49 CFR S580.7, which reads as follows:; >>>Each dealer or distributor of a motor vehicle who is required b this Part to execute an odometer disclosure statement shall retain for four years each odometer mileage statement which he receives.<<<; Specifically, you asked whether dealers and distributors are require to retain only those disclosure statements which they actually receive or whether they are under an affirmative duty to obtain a disclosure statement if none is offered by the transferor.; In the opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1988) creates an affirmative duty on the part of dealers and distributors to obtain disclosure statements. Section 408 states that:; >>>No transferee who, for purposes of resale, acquires ownership of motor vehicle shall accept any written disclosure required by any rule prescribed under this section if such disclosure is incomplete.<<<; Part 580 of 49 CFR requires such written disclosure. If a disclosur statement, as required by Part 580, is provided to the transferee but is not filled out in its entirety, then the disclosure of the mileage the vehicle has been driven is not complete. Likewise, if no information at all is provided as to the mileage, then the disclosure is also incomplete. Therefore, in order for a dealer or distributor to be in compliance with section 408 of the Act, he must take steps to ensure that he receives a written disclosure and that it is complete in all respects prior to executing the transfer of ownership documents.; Part 580.7 of 49 CFR merely requires that those statements which th dealer or distributor is required to obtain are retained.; Sincerely, John Womack, 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.