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: aiam1515OpenMr. Ronald C. Dobbyn, Program Manager, Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234; Mr. Ronald C. Dobbyn Program Manager Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Washington D.C. 20234; Dear Mr. Dobbyn: Your May 1, 1974, letter to Mr. Clyde Roquemore has been forwarded t me for reply. You ask for our comments on a draft standard on crash helmets developed by the National Bureau of Standards' Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, which was enclosed in your letter. You point out that this draft standard 'is intended for voluntary use by state and local law enforcement agencies in their equipment selection and procurement process.'; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Governmnent or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Pursuant to his statutory authority under the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, 49 CFR Part 571.218, on August 9, 1973. Since Standard No.218 establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets manufactured for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users, any differing State or municipal requirements in the form of laws or regulation applicable to the design or performance of motorcycle helmets which have a bearing on safety would be void in accordance with the preemption provision of the Act cited above.; On the other hand, if a law enforcement agency (or any other person wishes to establish higher requirements for its own procurement purposes, for helmets that nevertheless conform to Federal standards, nothing in the law would prohibit that.; I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vecle Safet Act of 1966 and copies of each of the four notices issued by the NHTSA on motorcycle helmets. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3528OpenMr. William E. Lawler, Specifications Manager, Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc., 120 West Main Street, Carmel, IN 46032; Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing Inc. 120 West Main Street Carmel IN 46032; Dear Mr. Lawler: This responds to your recent letter asking whether paragraph S4.2.2 o Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, is applicable to school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.; The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 222 specifie in paragraph S5(b) that all seats, other than the driver's seat, in school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 or less shall meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 as they apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles. The requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles in Standard No. 208 are found in paragraph S4.2.2 for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1976. There is no exception in S4.2.2 which allows school buses to comply with S4.2.1.2 of Standard No. 208.; School buses are not specifically mentioned in paragraph S4.2.2 o Standard 208, because that standard includes separate requirements for buses (including school buses) in paragraph S4.4. Under the general bus requirements of Standard 208, only the driver's position must be equipped with a seat belt. These requirements are supplemented by the more specific provision in Standard No. 222 which, as noted earlier, requires small school buses to meet the requirements of Standard 208 as they apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles.; I hope this has clarified your understanding of the requirements o these two standards. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any additional questions (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4717OpenRobert A. Rogers, Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9015; Robert A. Rogers Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015; "Dear Mr. Rogers: This is in reply to your letter asking fo confirmation that an interpretation of a notice of proposed rulemaking remains in effect with respect to the final rule based upon that proposal. I regret the delay in responding. Specifically, you reference an interpretation dated September 12, l988, that this Office provided Koito Corporation, informing it that each of the two Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) designs depicted 'complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2' of Standard No. l08. The second design consisted of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. We informed Koito that 'under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for 'the VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)', and that this meant that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly or separate from it. However, we also cautioned that our comments were based upon the proposal, and could change with the issuance of the final rule. You have commented that the final rule was the same with respect to the pertinent VHAD wording. This is not entirely true. The final rule (paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(vii)) omitted the parenthetical phrase '(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)'. You also noted that paragraph S7.7.5.2(c)(l) of the final rule defines a headlamp assembly as '(the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism)'. The intent of this language is to specify a VHAD that is a permanent part of the headlamp, and hence integral, or to have a separate VHAD that is part of the mounting mechanism. It was not meant as permitting a VHAD that could be physically separated from headlamp or the mounting mechanism. Thus, in our view and upon our further consideration of the matter, a detachable VHAD does not meet the 'intent' of the final rule. This means that the spirit level design described in your letter, which is not integral to the headlamp or mounting mechanism, is not permissible. We shall provide Koito with a copy of this letter. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1145OpenMr. John E. Huisman, Davies, Gibbs, Strayer, Stoel and Boley, Twenty-third Floor, 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204; Mr. John E. Huisman Davies Gibbs Strayer Stoel and Boley Twenty-third Floor 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland OR 97204; Dear Mr. Huisman: This is in response to your letter request of May 14, 1973, for a interpretation of the NHTSA odometer disclosure regulations, 49 CFR Part 580. You asked how the regulations apply to a bank which finances automobiles by actual purchase of the vehicle and the purchase money security agreement from the dealer, and obtains possession of those vehicles upon default when the bank repossesses them for return to the dealer.; In this situation the bank has full title to, and possession of, th vehicle and must make the odometer disclosure upon transfer to the dealer. Unlike the previous situation where the bank had no knowledge of the vehicle or control over it, the bank physically returns the vehicle in this case and is the actual transferor.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3178OpenMr. Glen Brinks, 2110 Magnolia Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92707; Mr. Glen Brinks 2110 Magnolia Avenue Santa Ana CA 92707; Dear Mr. Brinks: This responds to your recent letter requesting information concernin the Federal safety regulations applicable to motorcycle fuel tanks and motorcycle trailers.; The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard regarding fuel syste integrity, Standard No. 301-75, currently does not apply to motorcycles. Two safety standards would be applicable to the manufacture of motorcycle trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* and Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The manufacturer of a trailer, including a motorcycle trailer, woul have to certify the compliance of the trailer to these two safety standards. Part 566 of our regulations, *Manufacturer Identification* (49 CFR 566), specifies information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of motor vehicles, including trailers. Part 567, *Certification* (49 CFR 567), specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards. I am enclosing an information sheet that explains where you can obtain copies of these safety standards and regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4347OpenMr. Thomas Baloga, Safety Engineering, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., P.O. Box 350, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Baloga: Thank you for your letter of May 28, 1987, to Stephen Oesch of my staf concerning the requirements of Standard No. 301 *Fuel System Integrity*. You noted that there is a conflict in the standard about the correct ground clearance of the contoured impact surface used in the school bus impact test of the standard. You noted that S7.5.1 of the standard refers to the dimension between the ground to the lower edge of the impact surface as 5.25 + 0.5 inches, while figure 2 of the standard shows the ground clearance to be 12.25. As discussed below, the correct dimension is 5.25 + 0.5 inches.; The agency adopted the use of the contoured barrier in a final rul issued on April 16, 1975. The preamble to the final rule stated that 'The contoured barrier would incorporated the moving barrier specification of SAE Recommended Practice J972a (March 1973). However, the impact surface of the barrier would be at a height 30 inches above the ground level, rather than 37 inches as specified in the SAE provision. Studies have shown that a 30- inch test height is more representative of actual collisions. This would be a typical engine height of vehicles that might impact a school bus.' Thus, in S7.5.1 of the standard, the agency adopted the ground clearance as 5.25 inches + 0.5 inches to ensure that the top of the barrier would be 30 inches from the ground. In Figure 2, the agency apparently incorporated the barrier dimensions directly from the SAE Recommended Practice J972a, without changing the ground clearance dimension; We will publish an amendment to the standard that will correct th ground clearance dimension set out in Figure 2 of Standard No. 301.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3482OpenMr. T. Fumima, President, Taiyo Trading USA Inc., 1543 West Olumpic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90015; Mr. T. Fumima President Taiyo Trading USA Inc. 1543 West Olumpic Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90015; Dear Mr. Fumima: This responds to your letter of June 17, 1981, asking about th applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a manually operated door opener that you are considering importing. The door opener is designed for passenger cars and taxis and allows the driver to open the rear door by shifting a lever located by the driver's side.; By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals o vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' Emphasis added. ; The agency does not have any regulations covering manually operate door openers. However, installation of such a device may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards. If any standard would be affected, it would probably be Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*. For your convenience, we have enclosed a copy of that standard, which includes performance requirements for a vehicle's latch and striker assembly, door hinges, and door locks. However, based on the limited drawings included with your letter, it is not possible for us to determine whether a vehicle's compliance with that standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 206 to make that determination.; If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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.<<<; Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Yo may also wish to check with state and local authorities to determine whether the use of your device is affected by their regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2339OpenMr. W.E. Currie, Chief Engineer, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Hose Products Division, 30240 Lakeland Boulevard, Wickliffe, Oh 44092; Mr. W.E. Currie Chief Engineer Parker Hannifin Corporation Hose Products Division 30240 Lakeland Boulevard Wickliffe Oh 44092; Dear Mr. Currie: #This is in response to your March 24, 1976, lette concerning the application of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to thermoplastic tubing of 1/8 inch nominal outside diameter that is used in 'auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself. #You have pointed out that it is difficult to label tubing of this diameter with letters that are 1/8 inch high, and requested an amendment of the standard to permit the labeling of such brake hoses with letters that are 1/16 inch high. #Because the tubing that you have described is not manufactured for use in the brake system itself, it is not 'brake hose' as that term is defined in Standard No. 106-74 and is therefore not subject to any of the standard's requirements. In fact, although the standard does not prohibit the manufacture of air brake hose of 1/8-inch outer diameter, we are unaware at this time of the existence of any hose or tubing of that diameter that meets the definition of 'brake hose'. Therefore, the conformity or nonconformity of the tubing in question is a matter of private contract between Parker Hannifin Corporation and those truck manufacturers that are requesting conformity. #In consideration of the possibility that 1/8-inch outer diameter tubing may in the future be used in brake systems, however, there NHTSA has decided to grant your petition to reduce to 1/16 inch the minimum required lettering height on brake hoses of such diameter. Accordingly, a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced. #You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. #Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0304OpenMr. Charles O. Verrill, Patton, Blow, Verrill, Brand & Boggs, 1200 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Charles O. Verrill Patton Blow Verrill Brand & Boggs 1200 17th Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1971, concerning th Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulations, and your letter of March 12, 1971 submitting additional information.; Section 574.10 requires manufacturers to keep records of tires shippe 'on or in' a vehicle. This would cover the case you describe of tires shipped on a trailer, whether attached to the axle or merely strapped to the frame, providing that the tires were meant for use on that particular trailer.; If the tires are shipped separately, either attached to another traile or shipped in a separate package, they are not considered to be shipped 'on or in' the trailer within the meaning of section 574.10. Therefore, the provisions of section 574.9(b) would apply and the dealer would be required to record the appropriate tire information and communicate it to the tire manufacturer.; If the tires are shipped separately, under Part 574 the traile manufacturer would not be required to keep the records of the tires shipped. However, under section 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), the manufacturer is responsible for maintaining the name and address of the first purchaser. A copy of the Act and the recent amendment to the Act, section 113, which added subsection (f), are enclosed for your information.; Should you so desire, you may submit a petition for rulemaking on thi subject under our rulemaking procedures (49 CFR 553).; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5106OpenPhilip E. Stern, Esquire Rand, Algeier, Tosti & Woodruff Attorneys at Law Courthouse Plaza 60 Washington Street Morristown, NJ 07960; Philip E. Stern Esquire Rand Algeier Tosti & Woodruff Attorneys at Law Courthouse Plaza 60 Washington Street Morristown NJ 07960; Dear Mr. Stern: This responds to your letter of November 25, 1992, t this agency requesting information on placement of video cameras on school buses. You stated that you are the attorney for the Sussex Wantage Board of Education, a school district in Northern New Jersey, and that you are interested in speaking with other school districts that may use video cameras on their school buses. This agency knows of no specific studies or tests that have been conducted on the use of video cameras in school buses from the standpoint of either motor vehicle or behavioral safety. With respect to the latter, this agency is also not aware of any data which would indicate any safety consequences resulting from passenger behavior on school buses. We have, however, had occasion recently to address the issue of the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the installation of 'silent monitors' in school buses. Please find enclosed, therefore, a copy of a November 17, 1992, letter of interpretation that we wrote to Ms. Shirley A. Stewart of Herndon, VA. Ms. Stewart explained that her company was installing 'silent monitors,' which she described as six-inch cubes of welded steel designed to hold video cameras, in school buses in Prince George's County, Maryland. Should you wish to discuss this issue with Prince George's County school officials, your point of contact would be Mr. David Lombardi, Transportation Director, Prince George's County Public Schools, 13300 Old Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20702, (301) 952- 6570. Another possible source of information is Ms. Marsha Sailesbury, Consultant, Pupil Transportation, State Board of Education, 100 North First Street, Springfield, IL 63777, (217) 782-5256. I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. David Lombardi Transportation Director Prince George's County Public Schools 13300 Old Marlboro Pike Upper Marlboro, MD 20702 Ms. Marsha Sailesbury Consultant Pupil Transportation State Board of Education 100 North First Street Springfield, IL 63777; |
|
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.