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: aiam1431OpenMr. James P. Coughlin, Vice President-Marketing, Bell Helmets Inc., 2850 East 29th Street, Long Beach, CA 90806; Mr. James P. Coughlin Vice President-Marketing Bell Helmets Inc. 2850 East 29th Street Long Beach CA 90806; Dear Mr. Coughlin: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1974, requesting definition for 'motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users' used in paragraph S1. *Scope*, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*. You ask specifically what this phrase means relative to public thoroughfares, motorcycle race tracks, off-road public and private lands, and any other vehicles.; >>>'Motorcycle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as-- 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the us of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.'<<<; A 'motorcyclist,' then, would be any rider of a motorcycle as define above. 'Other motor vehicle users' means any occupant of a motor vehicle not a motorcycle. 'Motor vehicle' is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as--; >>>'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.'<<<; Standard No. 218 applies to the manufacturers, distributors, an dealers of helmets to be used at least in part by motorcyclists or other motor vehicle users. The circumstances under which such helmets must be worn, however, is under the jurisdictional control of the respective States and their political subdivisions.; You also ask whether it is lawful to manufacture and sell helmets fo racing purposes that are designed to meet the Snell standard, irrespective of Standard No. 218. The answer is yes, if due care is taken by such manufacturers, distributors, and dealers to prevent non-conforming helmets from being introduced into interstate commerce for eventual use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users on the public streets, roads, and highways.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4263OpenMs. Sandra Rogers Werts, 1922-B Greenoaks Road, Columbia, SC 29207; Ms. Sandra Rogers Werts 1922-B Greenoaks Road Columbia SC 29207; Dear Ms. Werts: This is in response to your letter of December 3, 1986, for informatio concerning the Federal odometer regulation, 49 C.F.R. Part 580 - Odometer Disclosure Requirements.; You questioned whether form 400, which you refer to as the Titl Transfer form, and the Affidavit & Notification of Sale of Motor Vehicle comply with the requirements of the Federal regulation. Both forms include the information required to be disclosed with the exception of the certifications set forth in 49 C.F.R. S580.4(d). In August 1977, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determined that these certifications were not required when States provided odometer disclosure information on their titles. Shortened disclosure forms were permitted on State titles. 42 Fed. Reg. 38907 (1977). Subsequently, the Agency decided to allow States to use the shortened form on all State documents evidencing ownership of a motor vehicle. 49 Fed. Reg. 784 (1980). Ownership is determined by State law. If, under South Carolina law, the forms evidence ownership of the motor vehicle, then the requirements of the Federal regulation have been met. If, however, the forms do not evidence ownership of the motor vehicle, then the disclosures fail to meet the requirements of 49 C.F.R. S580.4(d).; You also requested a certified copy of a determination made by th Agency in September 1985, concerning South Carolina's title documents. I have enclosed a certified copy of that letter. Please note that the letter discusses which State titles may be used in lieu of a separate disclosure statement and does not address the issue of other documents evidencing ownership.; I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4799OpenMr. William D. Rogers President SportsCar America, Inc. 400 South Elliott Road Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514; Mr. William D. Rogers President SportsCar America Inc. 400 South Elliott Road Chapel Hill N.C. 27514; "Dear Mr. Rogers: We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCa America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below. SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an 'Exclusive Distribution Agreement' ('the Agreement') with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a prototype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards. The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the 'Manufacturer.' Under Section l of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with 'those modifications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation' of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CFR Part 567, the Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles. Although you identify SportsCar America as the 'distribution agent', we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale in the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition. Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it would like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar figure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is available to the agency in its determination. If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1061OpenMr. R. E. Jones, Product Engineer, The Flxible Co., Loudonville, OH 44842; Mr. R. E. Jones Product Engineer The Flxible Co. Loudonville OH 44842; Dear Mr. Jones: This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 1973, requesting tha you be permitted to affix the Certification label for buses manufactured by your company on the right side of the dash panel, as illustrated in a picture (your serial; B72-4375-2) you have enclosed. As pictured, the label in the location you have chosen is easil readable without moving any part of the vehicle except an outer door, as required by section 567.4(c) of the Certification regulations, and your request that you be permitted to affix the label for these vehicles in that location is hereby approved.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1574OpenMr. Eric L. Clabough, 1210 South Walnut Street, Coffeyville, KS, 67337; Mr. Eric L. Clabough 1210 South Walnut Street Coffeyville KS 67337; Dear Mr. Clabough: This is in reply to your recent letter to the Administrator, Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the placement of front turn signal lamps on fire trucks.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflectiv Devices, and Associated Equipment' (copy enclosed) requires that front turn signal lamps be located 'at or near the front' and be spaced 'as far apart as practicable.' We would, therefore, have no objection to moving the front turn signal lamps on the fire truck from the side to the front. Locating the lamps on the front could also reduce the chance of damage to them, which might occur if they were located on the side.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3549OpenMr. E. M. Ryan, American Transportation Corporation, Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. E. M. Ryan American Transportation Corporation Highway 65 South Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your February 27, 1982, letter asking whether vehicle which transports 10 or fewer persons could be classified as a bus if it is built with a traditional bus body. The vehicle transports fewer persons than normal, because it is designed for wheelchair occupants. The answer to your question is no.; The classification of a vehicle as a bus or a multipurpose passenge vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards depends upon its passenger capacity. See the definitions of 'bus' and 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' in 49 CFR 571.3. A vehicle that transports the number of persons that you mentioned in your letter must be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The fact that the vehicle is designed as a bus has no relevance to its classification. The controlling factor is passenger capacity.; Since the vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it woul be required to comply with all of the standards applicable to those vehicles. This would include compliance with Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4776OpenDonald C. J. Gray, Commissioner Federal Supply Service General Services Administration Washington, DC 20406; Donald C. J. Gray Commissioner Federal Supply Service General Services Administration Washington DC 20406; "Dear Mr. Gray: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, ou Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your letter noted that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not apply to vehicles that are 'manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications.' You asked if this exception could be interpreted as applying to school buses purchased by the General Services Administration for the sole use of the Army. The answer to your specific question is 'yes.' Those buses would be regarded as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces. The exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c) reflects a balancing of competing interests. On the one hand, Congress specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that all new motor vehicles sold in the United States must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. On the other hand, NHTSA recognizes the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles. When the Armed Forces include specifications in a contract stating how the vehicles shall be produced and as a result the vehicles do not conform with some safety standards, this presumably reflects a judgment by the Armed Forces that the specialized capabilities needed in the vehicle are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the general interest in ensuring that Armed Forces' vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. To reflect both of these competing interests, NHTSA tailored a narrow exception to the broad requirement that all motor vehicles sold in the United States be certified as complying with the safety standards. This exception, reflected in the language of 49 CFR 571.7(c), provides that the safety standards do not apply to vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that are: manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications. We would regard the buses as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces despite the fact that the purchasing was performed by the GSA instead of some element of the Armed Forces. The essential element of this criterion is that the Armed Forces be the principal. In this case, the Armed Forces would be the principal, and the GSA would simply be acting as its agent. We see no meaningful difference between a sale to an element of the Armed Forces and one to the GSA acting as agent for the Armed Forces, as long as the vehicles are for the sole use of the military. Our conclusions in this regard are consistent with several 1975 agency interpretations informing brake hose manufacturers that brake hoses manufactured according to military specifications and sold to military contractors for incorporation in vehicles to be sold to the military could be regarded as equipment sold directly to the Armed Forces. Please note that to qualify for this exemption, the buses must be manufactured for the Armed Forces 'in conformity with contractual specifications.' In the interest of safety, we strongly recommend that the GSA or the Army, as appropriate, include the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses in those specifications, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended usage of the buses. I hope this response is useful. If you can provide me with further information, I would be happy to provide further guidance. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1124OpenMr. Ernest R. Sternberg, White Motor Corporation, 100 Erieview Plaza, Cleveland, OH 44114; Mr. Ernest R. Sternberg White Motor Corporation 100 Erieview Plaza Cleveland OH 44114; Dear Mr. Sternberg: By petition of April 30, 1973, White Motor Corporation requested th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to postpone the effective date of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, with respect to vehicles having front axles with GAWR's of more than 12,000 pounds, rear axles with GAWR's of more than 23,000 pounds, or tandem rear axles with total GAWR's of more than 44,000 pounds.; After considering the request, which asks relief from all provisions o the standard, the agency has concluded that an exception of such magnitude is not warranted and therefore denies the request. The agency makes no finding as to whether more limited relief may be appropriate, and does not consider the denial of the April 30 request to preclude the company from submitting petitions for relief from specific aspects of the standard.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3119OpenHonorable John C. Stennis, United States Senate, 303 Post Office Building, Jackson, MS 39205; Honorable John C. Stennis United States Senate 303 Post Office Building Jackson MS 39205; Dear Mr. Stennis: This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1979, concerning th interests of your constituent, Mr. Ronald Ashley, in Department of Transportation regulations affecting the sale of 'kit' cars. Mr. Ashley requests copies of bumper standards promulgated under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) (15 U.S.C. 1901, *et seq*.), and the name and address of a government official able to answer questions concerning such regulations. He also asks whether 'kit' vehicles, sold unassembled without engines or transmissions, must comply with Federal bumper standards.; I am enclosing a copy of Part 581, *Bumper Standard* (49 CFR 581), th only bumper standard issued under the authority of the Cost Savings Act. This standard replaced Federal motor vehicle safety standard 215, *Exterior Protection*, as of September 1, 1978. Requests for interpretation of standards should be made in writing and directed to me at the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; With regard to Mr. Ashley's plan to sell 'kit' cars, certain items o motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses) which may be included in a kit are directly covered by Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, *et seq*.) and responsibility for their compliance would be shared by the kit manufacturer. However, Federal bumper regulations and most Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to vehicles after they are finally assembled for sale or use. Thus, the sale of unassembled 'kit' cars would, for the most part, be affected by Federal standards indirectly, through the standards' impact on purchasers.; For example, the Part 581 bumper standard applies to passenger moto vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles (49 CFR 581.3). An unassembled set of body, chassis, and suspension components is not considered a passenger motor vehicle for purposes of the Part 581 standard and, therefore, that regulation does not restrict the manufacture, importation, or sale of such kits.; However, section 106(a)(1) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C 1916(a)(1)) prohibits the introduction in commerce of any passenger motor vehicle not in conformity with Federal bumper standards. Therefore, a purchaser who completes a kit by the addition of all new equipment would be regarded as the manufacturer of a new passenger motor vehicle and would have to assure that the vehicle complied with Federal standards. Since bumper standards established under the Cost Savings Act do not apply in the case of vehicles after their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Part 581 standard would not apply to the addition of a new 'kit' body to the chassis of a used vehicle. Other hybrid vehicles consisting of a mixture of both new and used parts would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. 'Kit' cars are treated in a like manner with regard to Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the Safety Act.; In view of this discussion, Mr. Ashley may wish to structure his kit in such a manner that they may be assembled on used vehicle chassis. Further, apart form considerations of Federal law, Mr. Ashley's commercial relationships may give rise to a responsibility to caution his customers that their vehicles when finally assembled may not comply with Federal safety standards.; Please contact me again if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4326OpenDavid C. Maroon, The Sentinel Group, P. O. Box 905, Miami, FL 33137-0905; David C. Maroon The Sentinel Group P. O. Box 905 Miami FL 33137-0905; Thank you for your letter to Stephen Oesch of my staff concernin Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. I regret the delay in our response. You explained that your company represents, on an exclusive basis, a number of different manufacturers of both windshields and tempered glazing material for automobiles. You asked whether it is possible to consolidate these different manufacturers 'into one identity by using both one DOT number assigned to the Sentinel group as well as one university logo.' As explained below, the answer is yes with regard to using one logo, but no with regard to using one DOT certification number.; S6 of Standard 205 specifies certification and marking requirements fo manufacturers and distributors of glazing material for use in motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment. All glazing material must be marked both with the basic identifying information specified in section 6 of the ANSI standard Z26.1 (as modified by S6.1 of Standard 205) and with a certification that the glazing meets the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Different certifications are specified for prime manufacturers and other manufacturers/distributors of glazing material (contained in paragraphs S6.2 through S6.5 of the standard).; Further distinction in certification requirements of prim manufacturers depends on whether the glazing is designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, or whether the glazing is designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. (A prime manufacturer is defined in S6.1 of the Standard as one who fabricates, laminates or tempers the glazing materials, as opposed to one who alters or cuts an already manufactured piece of glazing.); Since you indicate in your letter that the manufacturers you represen make windshields and tempered glazing materials for automobiles, we assume that the glazing is manufactured by the prime manufacturer and is designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper. In this case,the S6.2 certification requirements apply, which include marking each piece of glazing material with the symbol DOT and a manufacture's code mark, assigned by NHTSA.; The purpose of the manufacturer's code mark is to aid the agency i identifying the actual manufacturer of the glazing for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Accordingly, the agency only issues a code mark to a manufacturer that actually fabricates, laminates or tempers glazing materials. We have found the code mark to be an effective method to identify the manufacturer for enforcement purposes.; Because of this, the agency is less concerned that the distinctive log be for the same company as that which the code mark indicates. For example, in a November 7, 1983, letter to the Libby-Owens-Ford Company, the agency stated that so long as the manufacturer placed its DOT code mark on the glazing material, the tracing and enforcement policies would not be circumvented and the use of another company's logo would not violate Standard No. 205. Accordingly, it is acceptable, if you wish to have each prime manufacturer mark its glazing material with its unique code mark and your logo for the Sentinel group, which is used for all of the various manufacturers you represent.; I hope this provides an adequate response to your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.