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: aiam4033OpenStephen T. Waimey, Esq., Dean Hansell, Esq., Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071; Stephen T. Waimey Esq. Dean Hansell Esq. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles CA 90071; Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell: Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1985, concerning th applicability of S7.4.5 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, to manual Type 2 safety belts in passenger cars. As explained below, S7.4.5 is not currently applicable to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars. However, as a result of a recent amendment to Standard No. 208, the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard will be applied to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars, beginning on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirements are rescinded.; As you pointed out, S7.4(b) of Standard No. 208 requires vehicles wit gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less to meet the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard, including the requirements of S7.4.5. However, S7.4(b) specifically excludes manual Type 2 safety belts installed in the front seats of passenger cars from the comfort and convenience requirements. Thus, you are correct that a manual Type 2 safety belt installed in the front outboard seating position of a passenger car currently does not have to meet the requirements of S7.4.5.; In April of this year, the agency issued a notice of propose rulemaking (50 FR 14580) proposing that if the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 are rescinded for passenger cars, then manual Type 2 safety belt systems in those vehicles would have to meet all of the comfort and convenience requirements, including the requirement of S7.4.5, beginning on September 1, 1989. On November 6, 1985 (50 FR 46056), the agency issued a final rule adopting that requirement.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1231OpenMr. Kesao Nishiki, Program Supervisor, International Research & Marketing, The Plaza, 2 West 59th Street, New York, NY, 10010; Mr. Kesao Nishiki Program Supervisor International Research & Marketing The Plaza 2 West 59th Street New York NY 10010; Dear Mr. Nishiki: This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1973, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'. We apologize for the delay in answering your letter, but we did not receive your letter of the above date and the copy we later received does not include the diagram that was apparently attached to your original letter.; You ask whether the weather strip assembly 'used for the sealin between the car body and the door panel' must meet the requirements of the standard. We are unable to answer this question without additional information regarding the placement of the weather strip assembly and its attachment, if any, to the door panel. If you would provide us with this information, we will try to give you a prompt reply.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4463OpenEdwin Speas, Jr., Esq. Special Deputy Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, N.C. 27602-0629; Edwin Speas Jr. Esq. Special Deputy Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh N.C. 27602-0629; "Dear Mr. Speas: I am responding to your letter of July 7, 1987, wher you ask for some assistance with an issue facing your State's public school systems. You stated that some school systems have purchased vans that do not meet Federal school bus specifications. The school systems use these noncomplying vans primarily to transport school teachers and administrators, but the vans sometimes are used to transport students to extracurricular activities. You ask two questions. The first question is whether Federal law prohibits a school system from using a van to transport students to extracurricular activities if the van does not meet Federal school bus standards. The second question is whether the Secretary of Transportation has adopted a regulation defining the term 'significantly' as that term appears in 15 U.S.C. /1391(14). The 1974 amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act or VSA) apply to any person manufacturing or selling a new 'school bus.' NHTSA defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold or introduced into interstate commerce for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. The VSA does not regulate the manner in which a person, including a school district, uses a vehicle it purchases. Therefore, the answer to your first question is that Federal law does not prohibit a school district from transporting students in a noncomplying vehicle. On the other hand, the seller of these vans may have sold them in violation of Federal law if the seller had reason to know from factors such as the identity or activities of the purchaser that the purchaser intended to use or convert the vans to school buses. When NHTSA proposed to amend the definition of 'school bus' in consequence of the 1974 VSA amendments, we anticipated that there may be circumstances in which a manufacturer has no reason to know that one of its dealers has sold one of its vehicles as a school bus. The agency expressly stated in the preamble to the proposal that if a dealer knowingly sold any multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, then the dealer would be responsible for certifying the vehicle's compliance with school bus standards. 40 FR 40854, September 4, 1975. NHTSA maintains its long-standing position that the seller is the person in the chain of distribution most likely to know of a vehicle's intended use, and remains accountable for selling a vehicle as a school bus if the seller has reason to know whether the buyer intends such use. 40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975. Your second question involves the term 'schoolbus' as it is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, /102(14) 15 U.S.C. /1391(14) . That provision reads: ''Schoolbus' means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' (Emphasis supplied.) You ask whether the Secretary has adopted a regulation that defines the term 'significantly' as it is used in this statutory provision. The answer is no. The question of whether a motor vehicle is 'likely to be significantly used' for transporting students is one that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing upon the intended use of the vehicle. However, in the final rule amending the definition of 'school bus,' the agency stated its view that 'the Congressional emphasis on 'significant use' of a vehicle (is) a direction to extend the school bus standards to all buses that transport students, whether or not it is their primary purpose.' 40 FR 60033, 60034. Emphasis supplied. In expressing this view, NHTSA specifically rejected a Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) suggestion that the agency find 'significant use' only where a bus was to be used 'primarily' for transporting students. Id. Emphasis supplied. Therefore, when the agency considers 'significant use,' the question of whether a vehicle primarily transports school staff is not determinative. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0973OpenMr. Tatsuo Kato, Engineering Representative, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Tatsuo Kato Engineering Representative Nissan Motor Company Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of January 2, 1973, concernin Truck-Camper loading consumer information requirements.; You have asked whether you have correctly indicated the 'rear end o truck bed' in a drawing of the short body pick- up truck that you attached. The answer is yes. As Mr. Vinson of our staff indicated to Mr. Nishibori when he telephoned on January 9, 1973, 'rear end of truck bed' does not refer to a particular point with the tailgate in either a raised or lowered position. It means, in the words of the preamble of the reissued standard (37 F.R. 26605) 'the point where the identified surface of the camper abuts the rearmost edge surface of the cargo area of the truck, presumably the tailgate in most configurations.'; You also ask if you must meet the requirements of S 575.6 on or afte March 1, 1973. As a manufacturer of a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, you must pursuant to 575.6(a) furnish consumer information with each truck manufactured on or after March 1, 1973, at the time the vehicle is offered for sale. Material for examination by prospective purchasers, pursuant to 575.6(b) should be made available at dealer showrooms no later than the date that trucks manufactured on or after March 1, 1973, are first offered for sale by such dealers. The NHTSA has been petitioned to delay the effective date by 60 days and this request is under consideration.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4199OpenMr. Davis Thekkanath, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, 2307 Oregon St., Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements* requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, *Certification*, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1661OpenMr. James B. Steward, Bridges and Collins, Bridges Building, 701 Teal Lake Avenue, Negaunee, MI 49866; Mr. James B. Steward Bridges and Collins Bridges Building 701 Teal Lake Avenue Negaunee MI 49866; Dear Mr. Steward: This is in response to your letter of October 23, 1974, commenting o the Federal law requiring execution of an odometer disclosure statement when ownership of a motor vehicle is transferred. You express concern for private individuals, who, being ignorant of the disclosure requirements, are subjected to expensive litigation in defending their failure to provide the necessary document.; The odometer requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cos Savings Act were enacted in an effort to eradicate the occurrence of odometer tampering, by providing safeguards for consumers purchasing used motor vehicles which may have been subjected to an odometer alteration. In its attempt to achieve these ends, Congress ordered that an odometer disclosure statement, executed by the seller, accompany the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle. The information required to appear on the disclosure form is considered necessary to fully inform the buyer of all facts relevant to the odometer's accuracy that may be within the seller's knowledge.; In order to protect the seller from liability where he fails to fulfil the requirements due only to a lack of knowledge of the law, the relevant provisions specify that intent to defraud must be shown in order to obtain recovery under the Act for a noncompliance.; Ignorance of the law in many situations exposes persons to unfortunat costs and burdens. However, Congress has sought, through the Cost Savings Act, to effect an improvement in the reliability of motor vehicle mileage indications. Protection of buyers from fraudulent representation of a vehicle's odometer mileage demands the enforcement of certain requirements. If a seller is ignorant of the odometer law and fails to provide a disclosure statement he will probably not be subject to liability under the Act since his inaction was not intended to defraud the buyer. Emasculating the law to remove a private seller totally from responsibility for fear he might have to defend his actions would be defeating Congress' intent.; Your suggestion that the disclosure requirements only be applied t private sellers in situations where State law requires odometer mileage disclosure to appear on the Title is unacceptable, since the Federal scheme cannot rely on a State's action for its viability.; For these reasons, we must conclude that although some private seller may incur expense in defending their failure to fully comply with the Federal odometer disclosure requirements, the disclosure provisions should continue to be applicable to all sellers of motor vehicles in order to achieve the results intended.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3172OpenMr. Dennis Urban, Manning Equipment, Inc., P.O. Box 23229, Louisville, Kentucky 40223; Mr. Dennis Urban Manning Equipment Inc. P.O. Box 23229 Louisville Kentucky 40223; Dear Mr. Urban: "This responds to the questions raised in your December 5, 1979 conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the application of Federal safety standards to devices designed to aid the handicapped. In your conversation, you indicated that you will manufacture some devices that enable the handicapped to operate their own vehicle. These would be sold by you to individuals and installed in either new or used j vehicles. You also will install lifts in vehicles."; The Agency has no specific safety standards applicable to handicappe control devices or other devices designed to aid the handicapped. Therefore, we have no special guidelines that you must follow in constructing these devices. However, other Federal agencies, such as the Veterans Administration, have guidelines for such devices and we suggest that you comply with those guidelines.; The agency requires new vehicles to comply with all applicable safet standards. Accordingly, if you manufacture and install handicapped devices in new vehicles, those vehicles should comply with the standards. However, the agency has long realized that, in the instance of handicapped driver controls, it may be difficult to comply with some safety standards, particularly Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems* (copy enclosed). As a result of compliance problems and the need for these devices to promote the mobility of the handicapped, the agency has stated that it will not enforce standards whose compliance may be impaired as a result of the installation of handicapped driver control devices. Nonetheless, the agency encourages manufacturers to try to comply with all of the safety standards.; The compliance of vehicles with the safety standards, however, shoul not be affected by the installation of lifts. Many companies now install lifts in regular vans and in school buses. In all instances the compliance if the vehicle with the safety standards is maintained. Therefore, the agency will not allow any noncompliances to result from the installation of lifts in vehicles.; For used vehicles that you modify by addition of devices to aid th handicapped, you need not ensure that the vehicles comply with all safety standards. you should not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards, however. As in the case of new vehicles, if the addition of handicapped driver controls interferes with the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards, the agency would not enforce the noncompliance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3488OpenMr. T. M. Fisher, Director, Automotive Emission Control, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. T. M. Fisher Director Automotive Emission Control General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Fisher: This responds to your letter of September 17, 1981, requesting NHTSA' confirmation that certain small, utility-type vehicles to be produced by General Motors would be classified as 'light trucks' for fuel economy standards compliance purposes. In your letter you point out that these future vehicles, at least in base form excluding optional rear seats, would have greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger- carrying volume, a criterion for classifying vehicles as light trucks under our regulations.; As you correctly note, SAE Recommended Practice J1100a specifies tha cargo and passenger volumes are to be determined on the basis of a 'base' vehicle, i.e., one without optional equipment. Further, EPA regulations set forth in 40 CFR 600.315-79(c) provide that all dimensions and volumes are to be determined from base vehicles without options, for purposes of grouping vehicles in classes of comparable vehicles. Strictly speaking, however, neither the SAE Practice nor the EPA provision explicitly apply to the determination of cargo-carrying volume for utility vehicles under our vehicle classification regulations in 49 CFR Part 523. Those regulations are silent on the issue of the inclusion of options for determining interior volume.; Nevertheless, to achieve uniform treatment for passenger automobile and light trucks and to reduce the complexity of accounting for different variations of vehicles sold based on optional equipment, we interpret Part 523 to require that vehicle classification be determined on the basis of the vehicle without optional equipment installed. Therefore, we agree that two-wheel drive utility vehicles which are truck derivatives and which, in base form, have greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger-carrying volume should be classified as light trucks for fuel economy purposes.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3522OpenMr. Thomas J. Hagarty, Halloran, Sage, Phelon & Hagerty, One Financial Plaza, Hartford, CT 06103; Mr. Thomas J. Hagarty Halloran Sage Phelon & Hagerty One Financial Plaza Hartford CT 06103; Dear Mr. Hagarty: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 301, *Fuel System Integrity*, includes specifications for *fixed* barrier rear-end crash test.; The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 301 specifies rear-end crash test, but the test involves a moving barrier, not a fixed barrier. On August 29, 1970, the agency did propose a fixed barrier rear-end crash test for Standard No. 301 (35 FR 13799). However, that proposal was never made final. Rather, On August 20, 1973, the agency issued another proposal which specified a moving barrier for the rear-end crash test (38 FR 22417). This proposal was finalized and is the rule which is in existence today. I am enclosing copies of these *Federal Register* notices for your information, as well as a copy of Standard No. 301.; I hope this has answered all your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2763OpenB. Ruth Greene, Rohm and Haas Company, Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19105; B. Ruth Greene Rohm and Haas Company Independence Mall West Philadelphia PA 19105; Dear Ms. Greene: This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1978, requesting tha the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review the draft of the form with which you propose to satisfy the Federal odometer requirements.; The form you are proposing to use differs from the Federal form in tha the two sets of certifications are combined into an introductory certification with four exceptions. The regulations require the transferor to certify that the odometer reading reflects the actual mileage, reflects the mileage over 99,999 miles, or is not actual. Your form would allow a transferor to execute a disclosure statement without making any of the above certifications. The introductory statement says 'if none of the exception block(s) below is checked, the Seller hereby certifies. . . .' Therefore, by checking the third or fourth box the transferor would be indicating that the exception applies but neither of the introductory statements applies. For this reason we cannot give our approval to use this form as the Federal disclosure form.; 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.