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: aiam5427OpenMr. David Huff Co-Chairperson, Special Transportation Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation Central Missouri State University Warrensburg, MO 64093; Mr. David Huff Co-Chairperson Special Transportation Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation Central Missouri State University Warrensburg MO 64093; "Dear Mr. Huff: This responds to your letter to Mr. Charles Hott o this agency asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222), for wheelchair securement devices. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask about the need to increase Standard 222's strength requirements for wheelchair securement devices that are part of an integrated system. In an integrated system, the occupant restraint system (lap and shoulder belts) is anchored to the wheelchair securement device. You suggest that a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system should be required to withstand twice the load that is required for a securement device that is not integrated with the occupant restraint system. While we share your belief that wheelchair securement devices should be sufficiently strong, we do not believe there is a need to increase Standard 222's present requirements for securement devices that are part of an integrated system. Rather, we believe a securement device that meets the standard's present requirements is capable of withstanding the forces imposed on that device in a crash, even when the device is part of an integrated system such as the one you described. As you point out in your letter, S5.4.1.3 of Standard 222 provides for increasing the load requirement for a wheelchair securement anchorage when that anchorage is used by more than one wheelchair securement device. Moreover, S5.4.3.2(e) of the standard specifies that When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1.3 13,344 Newtons and S5.4.3.2 13,344 Newtons shall be applied simultaneously... Stated differently, the floor anchorage used for an integrated system must withstand a load of 26,688 Newtons, which is the sum of the load specified for the wheelchair securement device and the load specified for the occupant restraint. However, Standard 222 does not require increasing the load for a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system, and there is valid reason for the different approach. Under S5.4.2(a) of Standard 222, wheelchair securement devices that incorporate webbing or a strap must comply with the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Type I systems are lap belts, and are required by S4.2(b) of FMVSS 209 to have a breaking strength of not less than '6,000 pounds or 2,720 kilograms.' The 6,000 pound (2,720 kg.) requirement is equivalent to the 26,688 Newton requirement for an anchorage used for an integrated system. Thus, Standard 222 requires wheelchair securement devices to be as strong as an anchorage that secures both the wheelchair and the occupant restraint. Requiring the wheelchair securement device to be stronger than the anchorage cannot be justified by a safety need. I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0275OpenMr. James O. Blakenship, Director of CentiMile Programs, Long Mile Rubber Company, 155 South Court - Exchange Park, P.O. Box 45228, Dallas, Texas 75235; Mr. James O. Blakenship Director of CentiMile Programs Long Mile Rubber Company 155 South Court - Exchange Park P.O. Box 45228 Dallas Texas 75235; Dear Mr. Blakenship: This is in reply to your letter to Mr. Van Orden dated May 20, 1971. Tires retreaded prior to the effective date of the retreaded standar (January 1, 1972) are not permitted to contain the DOT symbol on the tire. If you have marked your matrices with the symbol, I suggest you buff the letters off the tire after it is retreaded, or remove the symbol from the matrix, or fill in that portion of the matrix.; The retreading of tires without the DOT markings before the effectiv date of the standard is permissible.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2248OpenMr. John R. Pratte, Manager Materials Engineering, Pullman Trailmobile, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, IL 60601; Mr. John R. Pratte Manager Materials Engineering Pullman Trailmobile 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago IL 60601; Dear Mr. Pratte: This responds to Trailmobile's March 4, 1976, letter asking if trailer equipped with one or more axles that have a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; Section S3. of Standard No. 121 provides in part that any vehicl manufactured before September 1, 1977, that has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the standard. The determination of GAWR is made by the vehicle manufacturer (49 CFR 571.3) and must be based on the capabilities of the axle system at 60 mph. Because the determination is made by the vehicle manufacturer, the NHTSA is unable to say that the components you mention in your letter would necessarily constitute an axle system with a GAWR of 24,000 pounds.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5077OpenMrs. Edna Sutlief Project Concern 504 Kansas Ave. Atchison, KS 66002; Mrs. Edna Sutlief Project Concern 504 Kansas Ave. Atchison KS 66002; "Dear Mrs. Sutlief: This responds to your request to the NHTSA's Aut Safety Hotline for information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and tiedowns for vans used for transporting disabled and senior citizens. Your specific concerns relate to whether Federal law mandates safety belt use in these vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. Federal laws administered by this agency regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. It leaves the individual States free to address questions about the registration and operation of vehicles within their borders. Questions about whether persons are required to use their safety belts while riding in a motor vehicle relate to the operation of a vehicle, and are thus addressed by the individual States, not the Federal government. Accordingly, your question about whether passengers riding in your vans must use their safety belts is one that should be addressed to the State of Kansas. I note, however, that while the Federal government leaves these questions of requirements in this area to the individual States, this agency strongly encourages the use of safety belts by all persons in a vehicle every time they ride in a vehicle. In addition, if your organization is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, regulations implementing that Act require installation of wheelchair securement devices and passenger seat belts and shoulder harnesses. For further information concerning the regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act you should contact: Robert C. Ashby, C-50, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590. It might be helpful for me to set out the Federal requirements for new motor vehicles. A provision of Federal law, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires safety belts to be installed at 'designated seating positions.' The specified requirements for belt installation vary, depending on the particular vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. However, Standard No. 208 would not require installation of a safety belt at a wheelchair securement location, because such a location would not be a 'designated seating position,' as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Furthermore, none of the other Federal motor vehicle safety standards require installation of, or set forth performance requirements for, wheelchair securement devices. If a safety belt is installed at a wheelchair securement location, either voluntarilly or pursuant to another state or federal requirement, the safety belt must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that manufacturers of 'motor vehicle equipment' notify purchasers and repair at no cost to the purchasers equipment that is determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Wheelchair securement devices are items of 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Hence, manufacturers of wheelchair securement devices are obliged to notify and remedy without charge any defects related to motor vehicle safety that occur in their products. You may also be interested to learn that this agency currently has a rulemaking pending to set forth performance requirements for wheelchair securement devices. While this proposal relates only to wheelchair securement devices installed in school buses, I am enclosing a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking for your information. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3009Open"Mr. M.V. Nodar, Vice President and General Manager, Engine Division, McCulloch Corporation, P.O. Box 92180, Los Angeles, j California 90009"; "Mr. M.V. Nodar Vice President and General Manager Engine Division McCulloch Corporation P.O. Box 92180 Los Angeles j California 90009"; Dear Mr. Nodar: This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1979, asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 as it relates to a manual fuel shut off control design that McCulloch Corporation wishes to incorporate in a future model.; Table 1 of Standard No. 123 specified the following operating position for a manual fuel shut off control: 'Off' - control forward, 'On' - control downward, and 'Reserve' (if provided) - control upward. The control that McCulloch would like to provide is a simple on-off knob control that in plan view is perpendicular to the ground and operates from on to off when a seated operator rotates it to the right, or counter-clockwise, direction. The control would be identified by the words 'Fuel off' and an arrow pointing to the right.; In our opinion, the McCulloch control does not comply with Standard No 123. The safety rationale for NHTSA's operating position is expressed in the response to petitions for reconsideration of the rulemaking action that adopted it:; >>>'The NHTSA has determined that the control should be standardized b requiring its operation along a longitudinal rather than a transverse axis. In this location there is a greater likelihood that in the event of a crash the control will be carried by inertia to the off position, thereby shutting off the fuel' (37 FR 17474, Aug. 29. 1972).<<<; The McCulloch control possesses neither the control positions no identification specified by Standard No. 123, nor does it appear that, in a crash, inertia would carry it to an off position.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1034OpenMr. Robert E. Bauer, Harnischfeger Corporation, 4400 West National Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 52346; Mr. Robert E. Bauer Harnischfeger Corporation 4400 West National Avenue Milwaukee WI 52346; Dear Mr. Bauer: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1973, to Gordo Lindquist, Regional Administrator, NHTSA, asking whether Federal standards require the installation of seat belts on certain vehicles you manufacture. According to brochures you have submitted, these vehicles are your RH 25 3-cu. yd. heavy duty hydraulic shovel, R-150-1 15-ton hydraulic crane, W-350 35-ton hydraulic swinger crane, and T-150 15-ton fully hydraulic truck crane.; With reference to the first three vehicles, the RH 25, R-150-1 an W-350, the NHTSA does not consider these vehicles to be manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Therefore, they are not 'motor vehicles' subject to regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. We view them as construction equipment whose use of the public roads is incidental to their primary work-performing purpose.; THe NHTSA believes, however, based on the information you hav submitted, that the T-150 hydraulic truck crane is a motor vehicle under the Safety Act, and a 'truck' under the motor vehicle safety standards. We base this determination on the vehicle's speed capability, that its manufacturer classifies it as a 'truck crane', and that its overall appearance appears to be that of a vehicle designed to be used on the highway. As a truck, the vehicle is required to be equipped with seat belts as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208, copy enclosed). It is required also to conform to safety requirements specified in other safety standards and regulations. Copies of the standards can be obtained as described in the enclosed, 'Where to obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations'.; Our decision as to whether this vehicle is a motor vehicle is base only on that information which you have provided us. Other relevant factors which can be taken into consideration are set forth in the enclosed interpretation regarding mini- bikes. If you have further information which you believe we should also consider we will be glad to review it.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4236OpenMs. Robin Leeds, Executive Director, Connecticut Operators of School Transportation Association, 133 Jerome Avenue, Burlington, CT 06013; Ms. Robin Leeds Executive Director Connecticut Operators of School Transportation Association 133 Jerome Avenue Burlington CT 06013; Dear Ms. Leeds: This responds to your letter concerning the height of front bumpers o school buses. According to your letter, school bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require front bumpers on all school buses to be located 18 inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, your bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper. I regret the delay in answering your letter.; You are interested in a revision to Connecticut's requirements fo school bus bumpers, which would require a bumper height that corresponds to the height used by chassis manufacturers, thereby avoiding the need to reposition or replace original bumpers. However, the state Department of Motor Vehicles believes that the 18 inch height, corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents the override of an automobile. You asked three questions related to this issue, which I have addressed below.; I would like to begin with some background information on our bumpe standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its Part 581 Bumper Standard pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Vehicle Safety Act). The standard establishes requirements for impact resistance in low-speed front and rear collisions and includes a bumper height requirement. The bumper height requirement prevents override in collisions with other vehicles subject to the standard.; The standard applies to 'passenger motor vehicles other tha multipurpose passenger vehicles.' The term 'passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles' generally corresponds to passenger cars. Title I of the Cost Savings Act specifically excludes trucks and larger buses from any bumper standards and allows multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) to be exempted from the bumper standard. I believe you are interested in the large, standard school buses to which the standard does not apply.; You first asked whether it would be safer if school bus bumpers wer kept at the position originally utilized by the chassis manufacturer. We are not aware at this time of any indications that it is safer to retain the bumper in its original position. However, NHTSA does not have sufficient data at this time to evaluate the safety effects of lowering the bumper. Chassis manufacturers may have considered practical reasons for positioning their bumpers in the manner they have done, since trucks and buses sometimes require greater ground clearance than passenger cars to negotiate ramps and to clear obstacles associated with off-road operation.; Your second question asked whether repositioning or replacing th bumper would affect compliance of the school bus with our motor vehicle safety standards. As you might know, persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7 *Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles*, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.; A dealer that modified the bumper of a school bus, prior to its firs sale, would thus be required to certify that the school bus, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. A violation of the Vehicle Safety Act would occur if an alterer modified the school bus in such a way that the vehicle no longer complied with an applicable standard. Since the school bus's continued compliance with applicable safety standards depends on many factors, such as the design of the school bus and the nature of work performed on the vehicle, dealers modifying school bus bumpers might want to contact the vehicle manufacturer to learn if any standards might be affected by the lowering of the bumper and obtain any information needed to make the required certification.; Your third question asked 'What, if any, liability is incurred by dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?' Violations of Vehicle Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1000 per violation, with a maximum fine of $800,000 for a related series of violations. A dealer altering a school bus can protect itself from such liability by ensuring that it complies with all relevant Federal requirements.; The issue of possible liability in tort is a matter of state law rathe than Federal law. Therefore, we suggest that you consult a local attorney on this question.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3459OpenRodney Spotts, Collection Supervisor, Ford Motor Credit Company, P.O. Box 1578, Columbia, SC 29202; Rodney Spotts Collection Supervisor Ford Motor Credit Company P.O. Box 1578 Columbia SC 29202; Dear Mr. Spotts: This letter is in response to your correspondence of May 14, 1981, t the agency concerning whether the affidavit used for repossessed motor vehicles in South Carolina has been approved by the agency for use in lieu of the Federal disclosure statement. We regret the delay in responding.; The Odometer Disclosure Requirements (49 CFR Part 580) provide that th transferor of a vehicle may make the disclosure required by the Federal odometer laws on the certificate of title or other statedocuments which evidence ownership, if these documents contain essentially the same information required by the Federal odometer disclosure statement. If the inforamtion contained in the state documents varies from that required by the Federal form, the state must obtain; |
|
ID: aiam1464OpenMr. R. Debesson, General Secretary, European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, Avenue Brugmann, 32, 1060 Bruxelles, BELGIUM; Mr. R. Debesson General Secretary European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation Avenue Brugmann 32 1060 Bruxelles BELGIUM; Dear Mr. Debesson: This is in reply to your Submission Nos. 78 and 79, of February 1 1974, and February 19, 1974, respectively. In Submission No. 79 you request that several corrections be made to the Tables of the Appendices of Standard Nos. 109 and 110 as they appeared in the *Federal Register* on November 1, 1973 (38 FR 30234). In Submission No. 78 you request new additions to the Tables.; You request in Submission No. 79 that Footnote No. 1 of Table I-S an I-T in standard No. 109 be corrected. A correction of those footnotes was published in the *Federal Register* on February 5, 1974 (39 FR 4578), and we enclose a copy. You also request that in Table I-C of Standard No. 109 the test rim width for the 165-15 tire size designation be changed to 4 1/2 inches. That correction was published in the *Federal Register* of November 13, 1973 (38 FR 31309), copy also enclosed.; You further request that Table I-D be corrected by changing the tes rim width of the 145-10 tire size designation to 4 1/2 inches, by changing the minimum size factor of the 230-15 tire size designation to '37.30,' and by changing the test rim width of the 165-400 tire size designation to '4.65.' Our review of previous publications show these three items and we will publish a correction regarding them. You also request changed in several load inflation values in Tables I-H and I-N. The November 1, 1973, publication is incorrect with respect to these load values as well, and we will publish a correction regarding them.; We cannot, however, grant your request that we correct in Table I-F th 16 psi (from '705 to '760') for the 5.60 R 15 and 5.90 R 13 tire size designations without first receiving a formal submission from E.T.R.T.O. requesting the change. The 705-pound load is a carryover from earlier Tables, and we cannot conclude that the Table as published on November 1 is in error. Accordingly, if you wish the load value to be modified to 760 pounds you must request such a change in accordance with the abbreviated rulemaking procedures published in the *Federal Register* on October 5, 1968 (33 FR 14964). Upon receipt and approval of E.T.R.T.O.'s submission, we will make the requested change in the subsequent quarterly amendment to the Tables.; You ask in Submission No. 78 that we add to Table I-H the 165 SR 1 tire size designation and the alternate rim size 500b. No amendment is necessary to include the 165 SR 13 tire size designation in Table I-H. Tire size 165 R 13 is listed, and Footnote 1 of the Table allows the 'S' to be placed adjacent to the 'R.' We will, however, add the 5.00B rim as an alternative rim size for the 165 R 13 tire size designation in the next quarterly amendment to the Tables.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4666OpenMrs. Tonda Anderson 1134 Ross Avenue St. Paul, MN 55106; Mrs. Tonda Anderson 1134 Ross Avenue St. Paul MN 55106; Dear Mrs. Anderson: Thank you for your letter asking for an explanatio of the legal requirements that would apply to a product you would like to market. Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly disclose the details of this product. We hereby grant this request. Your letter, which contains the details of this product will not be made available to the public. As Steve Kratzke of my staff explained to you in a telephone conversation on September 19, all of our interpretation letters are available to the public. Thus, this letter will be publicly available. However, I will not discuss any specific features of your product in this letter. Your letter indicated that your proposed product would alter the alignment of the shoulder belt to increase comfort for the person wearing the shoulder belt. This agency has discussed the legal requirements that might apply to devices that realign the shoulder belt in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. You should also note that your proposed product would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment,' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on such manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information or have some questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.