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 |
|---|---|
ID: aiam1607OpenMr. B. J. Smith, President, Nabors Trailers, Inc., P.O. Box 979, Mansfield, LA 71052; Mr. B. J. Smith President Nabors Trailers Inc. P.O. Box 979 Mansfield LA 71052; Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your August 21, 1974, question whether a 'logging pol trailer', which consists of a beam to which an axle-mounted bolster can be clamped at different points to accomodate (sic) different log lengths, qualifies as a heavy hauler trailer as that term is defined in Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*:; >>>'Heavy hauler trailer' means a trailer with one or more of th following characteristics:; (1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension o the vehicle frame, or; (2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carryin surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent 'front-end structure' as that term is used in S 393.106 of this title.<<<; This also acknowledges receipt of your September 5 and September 17 1974, letters on the same subject.; The logging pole trailer you describe is a heavy hauler trailer, and a such, Standard No. 121 does not apply to this trailer until September 1, 1976. The beam or 'reach', together with the bolster, constitutes the frame of the trailer, and the brake lines are designed to adapt to extension of the bolster element along the beam.; This arrangement differs from the standard highway van which has one-piece frame with an adjustable tandem axle. The purpose of this sliding arrangement is unrelated to an extension of the frame itself to accomodate (sic) the transportation of heavy or oversize loads.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0915OpenMr. Pundalik K. Kamath, Senior Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Post Office Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Pundalik K. Kamath Senior Safety Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation Post Office Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Kamath:#In your letter of November 28, 1972, you ask about th applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 to a wiper for the 'right-hand window'.#The control location, identification, and illumination requirements of Standard No. 101 apply only to windshield wiping systems, and not to those that may be provided for side or rear windows.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2928OpenHonorable John M. Ashbrook, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable John M. Ashbrook House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Ashbrook: This responds to your December 19, 1978, letter asking whether it i required that school buses be built transport a minimum of 9 passengers.; As you suggest in your letter, there is no requirement that schoo buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers. The school bus safety regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require the compliance of those vehicles used to transport more than 10 children to or from school and related events. Vehicles with smaller passenger capacities may also transport children to and from school and need not comply with the school bus safety standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4405OpenMr. Kenji Shimamura, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America) Inc., Research & Development Center, 1203 Woodbridge Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 58105 (sic); Mr. Kenji Shimamura Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor MI 58105 (sic); Dear Mr Shimamura: This responds to your letter concerning the requirements of Standar No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, for brake indicator lamps. The second sentence of section S5.3.2 of the standard provides that in vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, the activation of the indicator lamp(s) as a check of lamp function is not required when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. You asked if this provision can be interpreted to apply to vehicles equipped with a manual transmission and fitted with a clutch pedal interlock switch, based on a purported equivalent function of the clutch pedal starter interlock switch to the automatic transmission starter interlock. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no. As requested by your letter, we will consider your request as a petition for rulemaking and process it accordingly.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.3.2 of the standard states: >>>All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp functio either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the 'on' (run) position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between 'on' (run) and 'start' that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. However, in vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, the activation as a check of lamp function is not required when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.<<<; The second sentence of section S5.3.2 was not originally included i Standard No. 105. In adding the sentence, NHTSA stated the following:; >>>. . . Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., has requested confirmation tha S5.3.2 of the standard requires a check of the brake system indicator lamp function only when the transmission shift lever is in the 'P' (park) or 'N' (neutral) position (in the case of vehicles with automatic transmission). The literal wording of S5.3.2 requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever, whenever the ignition switch is turned to the 'on' position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition switch is in a position between 'on' and 'start' that is designed by the manufacturer as a check position. In the case of vehicles with an automatic transmission, however, this wording does not reflect the NHTSA's intent with respect to check function. To properly reflect this intent, the language of S5.3.2 is hereby modified in accordance with Toyota's request. . . . 40 FR 42872, September 17, 1975.<<<; Thus, except to the extent provided by the second sentence of sectio S5.3.2, that section requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever, whenever the ignition switch is turned to the 'on' position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition switch is in a position between 'on' and 'start' that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. Since the second sentence of section S5.3.2 specifically applies only to 'vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission,' we conclude that the sentence cannot be applied to vehicles equipped with a manual transmission.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0446OpenMr. H.W. Gerth, General Manager, Product Engineering and Service, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., 158 Linwood Plaza, Port Lee, NJ 07024; Mr. H.W. Gerth General Manager Product Engineering and Service Mercedes Benz of North America Inc. 158 Linwood Plaza Port Lee NJ 07024; Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1971, in which you aske whether the shoulder belt anchorages installed by Mercedes in its heavy trucks (over 10,000 GVWR) must meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 210, even though the standard does not require shoulder belt anchorages in vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR.; It is our opinion that because these anchorages are not required to b installed, they are not required to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 210. You may therefore continue to use plastic covers on the anchorages and need not render them unusable.; Please advise us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5644OpenMs. Rita Cola Carroll Chairperson, Bus Safety Committee Great Valley School District 275 W. Central Avenue Paoli, PA 19301; Ms. Rita Cola Carroll Chairperson Bus Safety Committee Great Valley School District 275 W. Central Avenue Paoli PA 19301; Dear Ms. Carroll: This responds to your question whether a chil sitting on a school bus seat with part of his body extending into the aisle, is afforded the compartmentalization protection of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. We have addressed this issue in an October 26, 1994, letter to Ms. Debra Platt of Stuart, Florida, and have enclosed a copy of our response for your information. In the Platt letter, NHTSA agrees that it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, rather than face forward. We are enclosing a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, which is referenced in the Platt letter. Guideline 17 uses specific wording with regard to seating of school children. It says: 'Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat intended by the vehicle's manufacturer to provide accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.208.' We are also enclosing a copy of a report prepared by this agency entitled School Bus Safety Report, and a copy of a Report Summary prepared by the Transportation Research Board in May 1989. The latter two reports give a good overview of school bus safety issues, and they and Guideline 17 contain recommendations to the various states in developing their own pupil transportation safety programs. As noted in the Platt letter, since the States regulate school bus use, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Pennsylvania Governor's highway safety representative is: Mr. Michael Ryan Governor's Highway Safety Representative Deputy Secretary Highway Safety Administration Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1220 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Telephone: (717) 787-6815 I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam2181OpenMr. L. David Minsk, Research Physical Scientist, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Cold Regions, Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH 03755; Mr. L. David Minsk Research Physical Scientist Department of the Army U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Hanover NH 03755; Dear Mr. Minsk: This responds to your December 11, 1975, request for copies of th Federal laws relevant to the use of trucks as carriers for snowplows and spreader bodies.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) primaril regulates the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment pursuant to authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. You requested copies of the Federal laws pertinent to the 'use' of a particular motor vehicle, but standards or laws regulating use are promulgated by the jurisdiction in which a motor vehicle is registered or driven.; It might be noted, however, that motor vehicle safety standards ar applicable to the installation of snowplows and spreader bodies on new trucks. For example, paragraph S4.3.1.1. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment* (49 CFR 571.108), specifies that if motor vehicle equipment, including snowplows, would otherwise prevent compliance with the Standard by any required lamp or reflective device, an auxiliary lamp or reflective device meeting the requirements of the Standard must be provided. Similarily (sic), when a spreader body is installed on a chassicab (sic), the completed trucks must comply with all applicable Federal standards.; The truck dealer or other person who installs motor vehicle equipmen on a truck that is certified as being in compliance with motor vehicle safety standards, prior to first sale of the vehicle, is responsible for ensuring that the truck remains in conformity. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the responsible party to the civil penalty provisions and other sanctions of the Act.; When a truck has been sold and is in 'use', the Act prohibits manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from making alterations that render inoperative any devices or elements of design installed in compliance with the Fderal (sic) safety standards.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4956OpenMr. James Hansen Model E Concepts P.O. Box 8051 Mesa, AZ 85214; Mr. James Hansen Model E Concepts P.O. Box 8051 Mesa AZ 85214; "Dear Mr. Hansen: This responds to your letter inquiring about th applicability of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to the alteration of previously certified new and used motor vehicles. You stated that your company is considering the alteration of motor vehicles to a hybrid version of an electric powered vehicle. In altering the current vehicles, your company would remove the internal combustion engine and associated components (including the transmission on some vehicles) and replace them with an electric battery. To accommodate the added weight, you would change the suspension and brake systems and add aluminum beams to the vehicle, however, your company does not plan to cut or otherwise change the vehicle's original unibody structure. You indicated that you believe NHTSA's regulations would only require your company to affix to the vehicle an additional label stating its modified gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and gross axle weight rating (GAWR). I welcome this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we 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. The answer to your question depends upon whether the vehicles your company modifies are new (that is, the vehicles have not yet been sold to the first retail purchaser) or used (vehicles that have already been sold to and used by the first retail purchaser). With respect to your company's modifications of new vehicles, your company would be an 'alterer' for the purposes of NHTSA's laws and regulations. 49 CFR 567.7 requires an alterer of a new vehicle to supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. This label added by the alterer must state that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. The added label must set forth the alterer's name and the date of the alterations. In addition, if after alteration, the vehicle classification or the vehicle's GVWR or GAWR differs from the information shown on the original certification label, then the alterer's label must reflect this new information. Your letter suggests that you believe your company must simply add a label showing the modified GVWR and GAWR of these vehicles. That is not entirely correct. Your company must also certify that the altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. An alterer must have some independent basis for this certification. This does not however mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to standards that include dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a 'body builder's guide.' It may be difficult for your company to certify that the hybrid electric-powered vehicles your company produces will continue to comply with Standards No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and the other crashworthiness safety standards that measure compliance during or after a 30 miles per hour rigid barrier crash test. The difficulty would arise because the weight your company would add to the vehicles during the alteration may result in more overall deformation of the vehicle during the crash test. To address these potential difficulties for electric vehicles, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on whether and how the agency should modify its safety standards to account for electric vehicles. This advance notice was published on December 27, 1991 (56 FR 67038, copy enclosed). The comment period for this notice closes on March 27, 1992. Your company may wish to respond to our request for comments on this subject. Different requirements apply if you modify used vehicles. In that case, the requirements in 567.7 would not apply, because that regulation applies only to motor vehicles before the first retail purchase of the vehicle. Hence, your company is not required to affix an alterer's label to those used vehicles you convert into hybrid electric vehicles. Instead, the relevant requirements are set forth in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section of Federal law provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly 'render inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For your information, I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0016OpenMr. Masaharu Morino Manager, Far East Department Guy B. Barham Company 500 North Nash Street El Segundo, California 90245; Mr. Masaharu Morino Manager Far East Department Guy B. Barham Company 500 North Nash Street El Segundo California 90245; "Dear Mr. Morino: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR 571.211). In your letter, you enclosed two samples of 'spinner' hubcaps, a product sheet describing several different designs of spinner hubcaps, and a letter from the New York Area Director of the U.S. Customs Service regarding spinner hubcaps. You asked whether these 'spinner' hubcaps may legally be imported into this country from Taiwan. The answer is no. Spinner hubcaps may not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States, nor may they legally be imported into the United States. I have enclosed copies of this agency's March 16, 1988 letter to Representative Terry L. Bruce, a May 13, 1987 letter to Representative William E. Dannemeyer, and a November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. These letters reaffirmed past interpretations stating that spinner hubcaps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any hubcaps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added.). We would consider each sale or offer for sale of spinner hubcaps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000. In your letter, you stated that some spinner hubcaps are currently being manufactured in the U. S. Thank you for alerting us to this situation. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action. I have also sent a copy of this letter to the Area Director of Customs for the New York Seaport. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures cc: Area Director of Customs New York Seaport New York, New York 10048 re: CLA-2-87:S:N:N1:101 835326"; |
|
ID: aiam5214OpenMs. Gail Lindsey Hillsborough County Public Schools Risk Management and Safety Department 707 East Columbus Drive Tampa, FL 33602; Ms. Gail Lindsey Hillsborough County Public Schools Risk Management and Safety Department 707 East Columbus Drive Tampa FL 33602; "Dear Ms. Lindsey: Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle o the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply. You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You therefore requested information on 'crash safety standards' of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter. For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992, Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992, Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988, a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations, and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan. The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
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.