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: aiam0577OpenMr. Terry W. Raney, Lathrop, Koontz, Righter, Clagett, Parker & Norquist, 1550 TenMain Center, P.O. Box 13006, Kansas City, MO 04190; Mr. Terry W. Raney Lathrop Koontz Righter Clagett Parker & Norquist 1550 TenMain Center P.O. Box 13006 Kansas City MO 04190; Dear Mr. Raney: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1972, concerning th confidentiality of information on manufacturers' quarterly production figures that is submitted pursuant to section 573.5(b) of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573).; Manufacturers' quarterly production figures submitted pursuant t section 573.5(b) will be kept confidential if the manufacturer so requests. This will be true except in those cases where the NHTSA determines that disclosure is necessary to carry out the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; In the event it is decided to make public such information the NHTS will, before release of the information, notify the manufacturer in question.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4867OpenMr. Jerald L. Mikesell Assistant Superintendent Sierra Vista Public Schools District Administration Office 3555 Fry Boulevard Sierra Vista, Arizona 85635; Mr. Jerald L. Mikesell Assistant Superintendent Sierra Vista Public Schools District Administration Office 3555 Fry Boulevard Sierra Vista Arizona 85635; "Dear Mr. Mikesell: This responds to your letter of March 25, 199 requesting 'a copy of the federal regulations regarding school vans being used for transporting students.' Your letter notes that you 'are especially interested in the number of students which can be transported before a van is considered a school bus.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. The capacity of a van used to transport students will determine whether the van is considered a 'school bus' or a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' under Federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Given the wording of your letter, I emphasize that it is the capacity of vehicle, not the number of students actually transported, which determines whether a vehicle is a school bus. NHTSA defines 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 10 persons or less constructed on a truck chassis. NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacturer or sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238. To determine whether your school district may use a vehicle other than a school bus to transport school children, you must look to state law. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of motor vehicles. In addition, use of vehicles other than school buses 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 its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations. 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: aiam2819OpenMr. R. L. DuMond, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. R. L. DuMond Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. DuMond: This responds to your April 4, 1978, letter asking several question concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus safety standards to your vehicles.; First you ask whether a driver is considered a passenger fo computation of designated seating positions and whether he is included in the computation of vehicle capacity. The term 'passenger' is not used in the definition of designated seating position in Part 571.3 of our regulations. Designated seating position uses the term 'person' in its definition, and a driver is considered a person for both the computation of designated seating positions and vehicle capacity.; On a related point concerning designated seating positions, you as whether wheelchairs are considered designated seating positions or auxiliary seats. Wheelchair seating positions are not designated seating positions and, therefore, are not required to comply with standards that apply to designated seating positions. However, wheelchair positions are counted in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of the type classification of a vehicle.; In your second question, you ask what is the proper vehicl classification for a standard design school bus that carries fewer than 10 persons. This type of vehicle would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle, all fixed seating positions would be required to have seat belts. Wheelchair positions, since they are not designated seating positions, are not required to have seat belts.; In a question pertaining to the above-mentioned vehicle type, you as whether it can be classified as a school bus if it complies with all of the school bus safety standards. The answer to your question is no. This vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle it must be certified in compliance with all of the standard applicable to that vehicle type. You are not prohibited from marking the vehicle as a school bus, however, with school bus paint, lighting, and lettering. Such markings do not change the vehicle type from multipurpose passenger vehicle to school bus.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0824OpenMr. Steven M. Sharp, Managing Director, Intercontinental Equipment Corp., 5383 Overland Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123; Mr. Steven M. Sharp Managing Director Intercontinental Equipment Corp. 5383 Overland Avenue San Diego CA 92123; Dear Mr. Sharp: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1972, in which you rais several questions concerning Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. You state that Intercontinental Equipment Corp. (I.E.C.) is the United States importer and distributer of certain vehicles manufactured by Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. in Japan. You also state that I.E.C. has contracted with Yachiyoda Sangyo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo to acquire vehicles from Suzuki, remove non-complying equipment, install approved devices, and affix necessary labels of conformity and arrange for shipment.; The answers to your questions are as follows 1. You ask whether the I.E.C. contract with Yachiyoda changes th status of Suzuki as manufacturer and I.E.C. as importer. It does not change the status with respect to our manufacturer identification and certification regulations.; 2. You inquire as to the classification of Suzuki and Yachiyoda unde Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Since Suzuki manufactures a completed vehicle, Yachiyoda is not considered a manufacturer under NHTSA regulations and is not required by the NHTSA to submit manufacturer identification or certification information.; 3. You ask whether the label of conformity (Label 2) which you propose to have affixed to the vehicles is acceptable. Th NHTSA finds it acceptable.; I enclose copies of Parts 566, 567, and 568 for your information. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1736OpenHonorable John E. Moss, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable John E. Moss House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Moss: I am pleased to respond to your November 29, 1974, request for ou analysis of Mr. Harris Roseboom's November 8, 1974, suggestion that the 'no lockup' requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, are unnecessary as they apply to trailers used in harvesting crops on dry, level terrain in California.; We understand Mr. Roseboom's concern about the standard as it applie to trailers used for bulk transport of agricultural products. However, Standard No. 121, you will recall, established comprehensive equipment, brake actuation, retardation force, and parking brake requirements for trailers, as well as the 'no lockup' stopping distance requirements to which Mr. Roseboom refers. As a result, any exemption from the standard would mean a loss of *all* of these safety features on those trailers which might qualify for exemption.; Our major concern, of course, is that these trailers could be use during the non-harvest months in regular highway use, or they could be sold for highway use at a future date.; In either case they would operate under the same conditions as an other trailer on the highway. Our authority over them ends at the point of retail sale, and we know of no other way to ensure they are highway- equipped than by mandating it at the time of manufacture.; I would like to note that the delayed effective date for 'heavy hauler trailers is based on the greater complexity of brake system design on vehicles whose function dictates extendable brake lines or a low configuration which limits space for mounting new brake components. The standard becomes effective for these vehicles on September 1, 1976.; As for trucks, the effective date of March 1, 1975, is the earlies date by which adequate supplies of components will be available to build the new systems.; We would appreciate your ideas on how to make provision for specialize use of vehicles like these, while ensuring that they are not operated on the highway under the same conditions as standard highway vehicles.; I am aware of your continued interest in ensuring safety on th highways and hope that you can appreciate our dilemma in cases like the classification of agricultural bulk transport trailers.; Sincerely, James B, Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam4534OpenMr. R. C. Rost President Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. 7380 Highway 101 Shakopee, MN 55379-3097; Mr. R. C. Rost President Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. 7380 Highway 101 Shakopee MN 55379-3097; Dear Mr. Rost: This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1988 bringing our attention to a conflict between a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to school bus lighting, and State requirements applicable to these vehicles. You have informed us that at least two States, Iowa and Wisconsin, prohibit Head Start buses in effect from being identified as a school bus, either by words or by color, and from having the warning lamp system required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires each school bus to be equipped with a four or eight lamp signal system, in addition to other required lighting equipment. You also indicate that some regional Headstart authorities reportedly do not recognize the interpretations and regulations of this agency regarding school bus safety. You have asked that Head Start buses be exempted from the warning law requirement if a color other than school bus yellow is used. In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require the issuance of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The amendments defined 'school bus' as: a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)) (Emphasis added.) On December 29, 1977, the then Chief Counsel of this agency issued an opinion under 15 U.S.C. 1391(14) that Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools and that buses transporting children to and from those schools are defined as school buses under Federal law and accordingly are subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Specifically, the letter stated: The NHTSA interprets the term 'school' broadly, because the agency believes that this is the intent of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) which directed the creation of the school bus safety standards. Since this head start program is basically an educational program for preprimary students, the agency had determined that those facilities are schools and buses transporting children to and from them must comply with the Federal school bus safety requirements if they transport 10 or more passengers. I am sorry to inform you that we cannot grant your request for an exemption. The 1977 opinion of this agency regarding Congress' 1974 mandate remains operative. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils such as those in the Head Start program. Any manufacturer who omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, or who delivers a bus with the warning lamp system inoperative, is in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject to civil penalties. The manufacturer is also subject to the provisions of the Act for notification and remedy of the noncompliance with Standard No. 108. The effect of the preemption provision in section 103(d) of the Act (15?U.S.C. 1392(d)) is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that State standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light requirement as a 'higher standard of performance.' Thus, regardless of how a State defines 'school bus,' a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with a school bus warning system that is designed and wired as required by paragraph S4.l.4 of Standard No. 108. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads, those State laws may not override Federal laws. The effect of Federal preemption is that the school bus warning system must continue to operate as required by paragraph S4.l.4(b)(ii), and a State may not directly or indirectly require tampering with that equipment in order to comply with State usage laws. We are providing copies of this letter to the officials in Iowa and Wisconsin mentioned in your letter. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: J.P. Golvinaux Dwight R. Carlson Frank Potts Donald Schneider; |
|
ID: aiam1366OpenMr. W.G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, Georgia 31030; Mr. W.G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley Georgia 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in response to your letter of December 7, 1973, requesting ruling on whether you will be allowed to sell warning flags after January 1, 1974. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 prohibits the manufacture and sale of non-conforming warning devices manufactured after January 1, 1974. Thus, you would be allowed to sell such devices, even after January 1st, so long as they were not manufactured after that date.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4164OpenMr. Davis C. Thekkanath, Sr. Supervising Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1986, asking for a waive from compliance with the headlamp mounting height requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to prototype and future production trucks you have developed for military application.; No Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicl manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.7(c)). This means that the headlamps on production models of your military truck may be mounted higher than 54 inches without creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. If the truck is also sold for commercial applications, however, it would be required to conform with the 54-inch limitation.; Although the exception quoted above applies to vehicles manufacture for sale, the agency has no objection to limited use on the public roads of nonconforming prototype vehicles that have been developed expressly for sale to the Armed Forces of the United States.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2663OpenMr. E.M. Ryan, Design Engineer, The Coachette Company, P.O. Box 1427, Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. E.M. Ryan Design Engineer The Coachette Company P.O. Box 1427 Highway 65 South Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your August 19, 1977, letter asking whether Standar No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, permits the use of two rear doors for the determination of the size of the required unobstructed rear exit opening.; The standard states in S5.4.2.2 that : [a] school bus with a GVWR o 10,000 pounds or less shall conform to all the provisions of S5.4.2, except that the parallelepiped dimension for the opening of the rear emergency door or doors shall be....' This section specifically allows the determination of the required rear opening through the use of either one or two doors. Therefore, your interpretation that the standard permits the use of two rear doors is correct.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3971OpenMr. Yoshikazu Ito, Manager, Technical Operations Section, Overseas Operations Dept., Tokai Rika Co., Ltd., Oguchi-Cho, Aichi Pref., 480-01, Japan; Mr. Yoshikazu Ito Manager Technical Operations Section Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. Oguchi-Cho Aichi Pref. 480-01 Japan; Dear Mr. Ito: Thank you for your letter concerning the buckle release requirements o Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. I apologize for the delay in responding to it. You asked for an interpretation of the requirement in S4.5.3.3(a) of the standard that automatic belts must have an emergency release mechanism that is 'readily accessible to a seated occupant.' The following discussion addresses the specific questions you asked.; The purpose of the 'readily accessible' requirement is to ensure that seated occupant can quickly and easily grasp and then release the buckle in an emergency. You explained that you have been reviewing the accessibility of possible installation locations for the emergency release by using a 5th percentile female and 50th percentile male test dummy in various seating positions. You ask whether in determining if the buckle is readily accessible, you can move the pelvic portion of the test dummy or move the seat back to permit the grasping of the buckle.; The purpose of S4.5.3.3(a) is twofold. First, it is intended to mak sure automatic belts are adjustable to fit a wide range of vehicle occupants, as specified in S7.1 of the standard. In addition, it is meant to ensure that the emergency release mechanism for the automatic belt is readily accessible to that same range of occupants. Thus, the release mechanism should be accessible to those occupants with the seat in any design position without the occupant having to take special steps, such as moving the seat back, to grasp and operate the release. I noted that the drawing you attached to your letter indicates that your emergency release is located within the latchplate access zone specified in S7.4.4 of the standard. Although S7.4.4 does not apply to the emergency release mechanism of automatic belts, its purpose is to make it easy for occupants to reach the latchplate of a safety belt system. We would consider any emergency release mechanism required by S4.5.3.3(a) that is within the latchplate access zone of S7.4.4 to be readily accessible as long as the occupant does not have to take any special steps to grasp and operate the release.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, 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.