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: aiam0446OpenMr. H.W. Gerth, General Manager, Product Engineering and Service, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., 158 Linwood Plaza, Port Lee, NJ 07024; Mr. H.W. Gerth General Manager Product Engineering and Service Mercedes Benz of North America Inc. 158 Linwood Plaza Port Lee NJ 07024; Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1971, in which you aske whether the shoulder belt anchorages installed by Mercedes in its heavy trucks (over 10,000 GVWR) must meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 210, even though the standard does not require shoulder belt anchorages in vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR.; It is our opinion that because these anchorages are not required to b installed, they are not required to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 210. You may therefore continue to use plastic covers on the anchorages and need not render them unusable.; Please advise us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5644OpenMs. Rita Cola Carroll Chairperson, Bus Safety Committee Great Valley School District 275 W. Central Avenue Paoli, PA 19301; Ms. Rita Cola Carroll Chairperson Bus Safety Committee Great Valley School District 275 W. Central Avenue Paoli PA 19301; Dear Ms. Carroll: This responds to your question whether a chil sitting on a school bus seat with part of his body extending into the aisle, is afforded the compartmentalization protection of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. We have addressed this issue in an October 26, 1994, letter to Ms. Debra Platt of Stuart, Florida, and have enclosed a copy of our response for your information. In the Platt letter, NHTSA agrees that it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, rather than face forward. We are enclosing a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, which is referenced in the Platt letter. Guideline 17 uses specific wording with regard to seating of school children. It says: 'Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat intended by the vehicle's manufacturer to provide accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.208.' We are also enclosing a copy of a report prepared by this agency entitled School Bus Safety Report, and a copy of a Report Summary prepared by the Transportation Research Board in May 1989. The latter two reports give a good overview of school bus safety issues, and they and Guideline 17 contain recommendations to the various states in developing their own pupil transportation safety programs. As noted in the Platt letter, since the States regulate school bus use, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Pennsylvania Governor's highway safety representative is: Mr. Michael Ryan Governor's Highway Safety Representative Deputy Secretary Highway Safety Administration Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1220 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Telephone: (717) 787-6815 I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam2181OpenMr. L. David Minsk, Research Physical Scientist, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Cold Regions, Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH 03755; Mr. L. David Minsk Research Physical Scientist Department of the Army U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Hanover NH 03755; Dear Mr. Minsk: This responds to your December 11, 1975, request for copies of th Federal laws relevant to the use of trucks as carriers for snowplows and spreader bodies.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) primaril regulates the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment pursuant to authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. You requested copies of the Federal laws pertinent to the 'use' of a particular motor vehicle, but standards or laws regulating use are promulgated by the jurisdiction in which a motor vehicle is registered or driven.; It might be noted, however, that motor vehicle safety standards ar applicable to the installation of snowplows and spreader bodies on new trucks. For example, paragraph S4.3.1.1. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment* (49 CFR 571.108), specifies that if motor vehicle equipment, including snowplows, would otherwise prevent compliance with the Standard by any required lamp or reflective device, an auxiliary lamp or reflective device meeting the requirements of the Standard must be provided. Similarily (sic), when a spreader body is installed on a chassicab (sic), the completed trucks must comply with all applicable Federal standards.; The truck dealer or other person who installs motor vehicle equipmen on a truck that is certified as being in compliance with motor vehicle safety standards, prior to first sale of the vehicle, is responsible for ensuring that the truck remains in conformity. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the responsible party to the civil penalty provisions and other sanctions of the Act.; When a truck has been sold and is in 'use', the Act prohibits manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from making alterations that render inoperative any devices or elements of design installed in compliance with the Fderal (sic) safety standards.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4956OpenMr. James Hansen Model E Concepts P.O. Box 8051 Mesa, AZ 85214; Mr. James Hansen Model E Concepts P.O. Box 8051 Mesa AZ 85214; "Dear Mr. Hansen: This responds to your letter inquiring about th applicability of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to the alteration of previously certified new and used motor vehicles. You stated that your company is considering the alteration of motor vehicles to a hybrid version of an electric powered vehicle. In altering the current vehicles, your company would remove the internal combustion engine and associated components (including the transmission on some vehicles) and replace them with an electric battery. To accommodate the added weight, you would change the suspension and brake systems and add aluminum beams to the vehicle, however, your company does not plan to cut or otherwise change the vehicle's original unibody structure. You indicated that you believe NHTSA's regulations would only require your company to affix to the vehicle an additional label stating its modified gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and gross axle weight rating (GAWR). I welcome this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The answer to your question depends upon whether the vehicles your company modifies are new (that is, the vehicles have not yet been sold to the first retail purchaser) or used (vehicles that have already been sold to and used by the first retail purchaser). With respect to your company's modifications of new vehicles, your company would be an 'alterer' for the purposes of NHTSA's laws and regulations. 49 CFR 567.7 requires an alterer of a new vehicle to supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. This label added by the alterer must state that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. The added label must set forth the alterer's name and the date of the alterations. In addition, if after alteration, the vehicle classification or the vehicle's GVWR or GAWR differs from the information shown on the original certification label, then the alterer's label must reflect this new information. Your letter suggests that you believe your company must simply add a label showing the modified GVWR and GAWR of these vehicles. That is not entirely correct. Your company must also certify that the altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. An alterer must have some independent basis for this certification. This does not however mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to standards that include dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a 'body builder's guide.' It may be difficult for your company to certify that the hybrid electric-powered vehicles your company produces will continue to comply with Standards No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and the other crashworthiness safety standards that measure compliance during or after a 30 miles per hour rigid barrier crash test. The difficulty would arise because the weight your company would add to the vehicles during the alteration may result in more overall deformation of the vehicle during the crash test. To address these potential difficulties for electric vehicles, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on whether and how the agency should modify its safety standards to account for electric vehicles. This advance notice was published on December 27, 1991 (56 FR 67038, copy enclosed). The comment period for this notice closes on March 27, 1992. Your company may wish to respond to our request for comments on this subject. Different requirements apply if you modify used vehicles. In that case, the requirements in 567.7 would not apply, because that regulation applies only to motor vehicles before the first retail purchase of the vehicle. Hence, your company is not required to affix an alterer's label to those used vehicles you convert into hybrid electric vehicles. Instead, the relevant requirements are set forth in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section of Federal law provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly 'render inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For your information, I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0016OpenMr. Masaharu Morino Manager, Far East Department Guy B. Barham Company 500 North Nash Street El Segundo, California 90245; Mr. Masaharu Morino Manager Far East Department Guy B. Barham Company 500 North Nash Street El Segundo California 90245; "Dear Mr. Morino: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR 571.211). In your letter, you enclosed two samples of 'spinner' hubcaps, a product sheet describing several different designs of spinner hubcaps, and a letter from the New York Area Director of the U.S. Customs Service regarding spinner hubcaps. You asked whether these 'spinner' hubcaps may legally be imported into this country from Taiwan. The answer is no. Spinner hubcaps may not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States, nor may they legally be imported into the United States. I have enclosed copies of this agency's March 16, 1988 letter to Representative Terry L. Bruce, a May 13, 1987 letter to Representative William E. Dannemeyer, and a November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. These letters reaffirmed past interpretations stating that spinner hubcaps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any hubcaps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added.). We would consider each sale or offer for sale of spinner hubcaps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000. In your letter, you stated that some spinner hubcaps are currently being manufactured in the U. S. Thank you for alerting us to this situation. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action. I have also sent a copy of this letter to the Area Director of Customs for the New York Seaport. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures cc: Area Director of Customs New York Seaport New York, New York 10048 re: CLA-2-87:S:N:N1:101 835326"; |
|
ID: aiam5214OpenMs. Gail Lindsey Hillsborough County Public Schools Risk Management and Safety Department 707 East Columbus Drive Tampa, FL 33602; Ms. Gail Lindsey Hillsborough County Public Schools Risk Management and Safety Department 707 East Columbus Drive Tampa FL 33602; "Dear Ms. Lindsey: Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle o the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply. You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You therefore requested information on 'crash safety standards' of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter. For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992, Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992, Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988, a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations, and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan. The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4813OpenMr. Paul A. Shaw Superintendent Florence County School District Five Marion Street P.O. Drawer 98 Johnsonville, South Carolina 29555; Mr. Paul A. Shaw Superintendent Florence County School District Five Marion Street P.O. Drawer 98 Johnsonville South Carolina 29555; "Dear Mr. Shaw: This responds to your letter of October 15, 1990. I your letter you correctly state that a van designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events is considered a school bus under federal law. You then asked, '(d)oes federal law prohibit a school district from using a fifteen-passenger van that does not meet federal safety standards for school buses to transport students to athletic events, extra-curricular activities, and field trips?' The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. These standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a user of a school bus. Therefore, to determine whether your school district may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage your school district to give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations. Your letter also indicates that your school district purchased a 'standard, fifteen-passenger 1990 Dodge van to transport students to various school-related events.' I assume that by the term standard you are indicating that the van has not been certified as complying with all regulations applicable to school buses. If this van was purchased new, and if the dealer knew of your intended use, the dealer may have violated federal law. If you believe that you were sold a noncomplying vehicle, please contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0503OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: Your inquiry concerning the certification required of seat belt installed in motor vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1972, has been brought to our attention. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, which governs the installation of seat belts, requires belts to conform to Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 is amended affective January 1, 1972, your question is whether a vehicle manufactured after that date must have seat belts that are certified as conforming to the new provisions of Standard No. 209.; We construe Standard No. 208 to require only that the belts conform t Standard No. 209 as it was at the time of their manufacture. Thus a belt manufactured before January 1 that conforms to the contemporaneous (pre- amendment) version of Standard No. 209 may be installed in a vehicle manufactured after that date. A belt manufactured after January 1, must, of course, conform to the amended version of the standard.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2494OpenMr. Jack D. Livingston, Executive Vice-President, Caravan Trailer Rental Co. Ltd., 955 Middlegate Road, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L4Y3Y4; Mr. Jack D. Livingston Executive Vice-President Caravan Trailer Rental Co. Ltd. 955 Middlegate Road Mississauga Ontario Canada L4Y3Y4; Dear Mr. Livingston: This responds to Caravan Trailer Rental Company's December 22, 1976 question whether trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, may be imported into the United States for sale without being required to conform to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems.*; Standard No. 121 only regulates the manufacture and importation o trailers that are produced on or after January 1, 1975. Standard No. 121's only limitation on the importation and sale of trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, would be that any repair, refurbishment, or other modification of the trailer must not be so significant as to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. To qualify as a repair the NHTSA requires that the running gear assembly of the existing trailer be used in the refurbished trailer and that certain other identification and ownership (or leasing) aspects of the existing trailer be continued in the refurbished trailer. I have enclosed a copy of a notice which explains the NHTSA regulations in this area.; You are reminded that a trailer imported into the United States as yo describe must bear a label that states the month and year of manufacture.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5351OpenMr. Mark M. McGregor 7 Highfield Drive Sandwich, MA 02563; Mr. Mark M. McGregor 7 Highfield Drive Sandwich MA 02563; "Dear Mr. McGregor: This is in reply to your letter of March 31, 1994 with respect to Federal regulations that may apply to a motor vehicle rear lighting device that you have invented. Your 'Safe Driving Indicator Light', mounted on the rear of a vehicle, would emit one color ('possibly green') which would change to red when a vehicle following came too close. To put it at its simplest, an invention such as yours is permissible under the Federal statutes and regulations of this agency as long as it does not negatively affect the performance of the lighting equipment that is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This is the Federal standard that specifies what is required as original lighting equipment on motor vehicles. More specifically, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits non-required lighting devices as original equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. We believe that your invention, as described, has the potentiality to impair the stop lamp system. While running lamps of the color red are permitted (e.g. taillamps), the sudden change from green to red of the lamp of your system could be misinterpreted as a signal to the car following that the car ahead is preparing to stop. However, the purpose of your lamp is not to indicate a stop but to warn the following driver that (s)he is too close. As a warning lamp, we believe that your use of amber as a color, rather than red, would convey the desired message without impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamps. But you should consider the intensity and location of the lamps to avoid impairment of the rear turn signal lamps. With respect to the aftermarket, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) (Section 108(a)(20(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as not forbidding activities by persons other than those named above that affect the compliance of a vehicle with the Federal safety standards. Thus, the installation of your invention emitting a red color is not precluded if the invention is intended for installation by a vehicle owner, and is not prohibited for installation by others if the warning light color is amber. However, you must still determine whether use of the lamp is permissible under the laws of States where it will be used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest that you write for an opinion to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, John Womack Acting 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.