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: aiam1023OpenMr. A. J. Kuzel, General Manager, Jim Whalen Ford, Ind., 1045 East Chicago Street, Elgin, IL 60120; Mr. A. J. Kuzel General Manager Jim Whalen Ford Ind. 1045 East Chicago Street Elgin IL 60120; Dear Mr. Kuzel: This is in response to your letter of February 20, 1973, concerning th use of the dealer plate number on the form required by the Federal Odometer Disclosure Requirements.; Under the Illinois procedure you describe, where the seller retains hi tags and the dealer attaches dealer tags, the number of the dealer tag may be used in the space marked as 'Last Plate Number.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5060OpenMs. Mindy Lang Division Manager Huntleigh Transportation Services Inc. #12 Millpark Court Maryland Heights, MO 63043; Ms. Mindy Lang Division Manager Huntleigh Transportation Services Inc. #12 Millpark Court Maryland Heights MO 63043; "Dear Ms. Lang: This responds to your letter of September 12, 1992 requesting information on regulations concerning bus conversions. Your company converts the interior of buses by installing such materials as carpets, wall coverings, and blinds. In particular you asked for information on regulations concerning the attachment of seats to vehicles and the material used for the construction of seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. 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. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish one safety standard relevant to seating, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. There is one other safety standard that could be affected by the work your company performs. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, including buses. If your company converts previously certified buses, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as: A person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified ... other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale .... If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. The label must also state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed. Your company would not be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7 if the modifications involve only readily attachable components. However, the modifications would still be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. I hope you find this information helpful. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. 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: aiam0798OpenMr. Thomas L. Schroeder, Thoroughbred Homes, Inc., P.O. Box 1728, Valdoeta, GA 31601; Mr. Thomas L. Schroeder Thoroughbred Homes Inc. P.O. Box 1728 Valdoeta GA 31601; Dear Mr. Schroeder: This is in response to your inquiry of July 26, 1972, concerning th application of defect reporting requirements to mobile home manufacturers.; Although mobile homes are not specifically mentioned in the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, they are considered to be motor vehicles subject to the Act. Because of their unique characteristics, mobile homes have been categorized as a separate vehicle type, 'mobile structure trailer,' under the motor vehicle safety standards 49 CFR Part 581. 'Mobile structure trailer' is defined in section 571.3 of that part.; The Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573) apply to manufacturer of all types of motor vehicles, including mobile structure trailers. They require manufacturers to report the number of vehicles manufactured during each calendar quarter. The description of the regulation's requirements in the article you enclosed is somewhat incomplete and accordingly we have enclosed a copy of the regulation for your guidance.; There are no specific forms which we require to be used in th submission of the specified information. Copies of acceptable formats you may wish to use, however, are also enclosed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson |
|
ID: aiam0262OpenMr. Gerald Sagerman, U.S. Agent, TVR Engineering, Ltd., 572 Merrick Road, Lynbrook, NY 11563; Mr. Gerald Sagerman U.S. Agent TVR Engineering Ltd. 572 Merrick Road Lynbrook NY 11563; Dear Mr. Sagerman: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1970, to the Directo of the National Highway Safety Bureau forwarding information sheets on the TVR Vixen. I am enclosing copies of the Bureau's Consumer Information Regulations (49 CFR Part 575). The substantive provisions, S 575.101 on vehicle stopping distance, S 575.102 on tire reserve load, and S 575.106 on acceleration and passing ability, require the furnishing of specific information in a format which is in the form set out in the regulations. The information sheets which you have provided fall short of these requirements in both form and substance. For example, S 575.101 requires furnishing information on the minimum stopping distance, expressed in feet, for the particular vehicle, from a particular speed, at specified loads, with the braking system in a specified condition. The information provided by you in this regard is incomplete, and is not in the form specified. In addition, the regulations require the information to describe and be valid for each of the vehicles with which it is provided.; Please study the enclosed regulations carefully and forward to u complying consumer information within the near future. Let us know if you need further assistance.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5430OpenMr. Richard J. Quigley 5886-b Fernflat Road Aptos, CA 95003; Mr. Richard J. Quigley 5886-b Fernflat Road Aptos CA 95003; Dear Mr. Quigley: This responds to your request for reconsideration o our July 15, 1994 interpretation letter on Standard No. 218, Motorcycle helmets. In that letter, we stated that a drawing you provided would not meet the requirement in S5.6.1(e) of the standard that motorcycle helmets be labeled with the symbol DOT. You enclosed a new drawing and ask whether it meets S5.6.1(e). The answer is no. The new version of the drawing consists of three figures that you believe constitute the symbol 'DOT.' Your new drawing continues to incorporate a corporate logo in lieu of the letter 'O.' As explained in our July 15, 1994 letter, because the symbol DOT constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to Standard No. 218, there must be no ambiguity in the symbol. Using the corporate logo in lieu of the letter 'O' introduces ambiguity as to whether the manufacturer has certified the helmet. Thus, the new version of the drawing you provided does not meet S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218. I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1920OpenMr. Andrew H. Swartz, Johnson, Hogan & Ometer, Post Office Drawer 668, Moneterey, CA 93940; Mr. Andrew H. Swartz Johnson Hogan & Ometer Post Office Drawer 668 Moneterey CA 93940; Dear Mr. Swartz: This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1975, requesting a interpretation of the meaning of 'gross vehicle weight rating.'; The gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of a trailer consists of th weight of the empty trailer plus its rated cargo load. The weight of the tractor is not included. The tractor and the trailer are considered as two separate vehicles, each with its own individual GVWR.; The Distributors Association interpretation you cited is correct, bu you appear to have misinterpreted it. In the case of a semi-trailer, a significant portion of the loaded trailer's GVWR may be supported by the tractor's rear axle. Therefore, the trailer's GVWR may be significantly higher than its gross axle weight rating, which is the weight an entire axle system, including tires, wheels, axle, and suspension systems, is capable of supporting.; Please let me know if you need further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0632OpenMr. Harold E. Krause, Vice-President, Zecol Inc., P.O. Box 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201; Mr. Harold E. Krause Vice-President Zecol Inc. P.O. Box 1100 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53201; Dear Mr. Krause: In response to your letter of February 28, I enclose a copy of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*, which became effective March 1, 1972.; Paragraph S5.2 as amended specifies the appropriate labeling fo containers of fluid manufactured on or after March 1. If the labeled on containers in stock do not meet the new requirements, you may affix a conforming gummed label over them.; I recommend that you subscribe to the Federal Register ($25.00 pe year, from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402). Which contains all Federal regulations as issued or proposed on a daily basis. As a manufacturer in a regulated industry. it is your responsibility to be completely familiar with all applicable regulations. The Superintendent of Documents can also provide you with a subscription service to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ($8.00 per year), updated as new regulations are issued.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4108OpenPeter M. Kopanon, Director, Vehicle Inspection Services, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, 100 Nashua Street, Boston, MA 02114; Peter M. Kopanon Director Vehicle Inspection Services Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles 100 Nashua Street Boston MA 02114; Dear Mr. Kopanon: This responds to your March 19, 1986 letter to our office concernin Federal preemption of state motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Previously, you had requested us to clarify the language of section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We responded by letter dated March 24, 1986, which explained the phrase 'procured for the State's own use.' Your current letter focuses specifically on requirements for school bus mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, and asks whether Massachusetts could require an additional mirror on school buses owned by the state and its political subdivisions to enhance the view of school bus operator (sic).; The answer to your question is yes. As explained in our March 2 letter, under S103(d) of the Safety Act, a state may establish safety requirements for motor vehicles procured for its own use if such requirements impose the same or higher standard of performance than the Federal standard. The phrase 'higher standard of performance' means that the state standard must not conflict with the Federal standard, but may contain additional or more stringent requirements. Massachusetts may thus require an additional mirror on its school buses that provides greater views of areas in front of and along sides of the bus. This requirement, however, must not conflict with Federal requirements and prevent the school buses from complying with Federal safety standards.; We explained in our March 24 letter that states may not prescrib safety standards for privately-owned school buses transporting children to private and parochial schools that are not identical to the Federal safety standards covering the same aspects of performance. Your current letter asked further about Massachusetts' requirement that school committees (which we understand to be political subdivisions of the state) provide equal pupil transportation to public, private and parochial schools. You asked whether buses procured to fulfill this mandate are 'procured for the state's own use,' even though the buses would be used to transport students to private and parochial schools.; In our opinion, the answer is yes. NHTSA has interpreted the phras 'procured for its own use' to apply to any vehicle intended for transporting the public which is procured by a state or political subdivision thereof. Buses procured by the state to transport students to private and parochial schools are thus 'procured for the state's own use,' and may be required by Massachusetts to have additional mirrors to promote the safety of the school children they carry. We note, of course, that we suggest no position as to the constitutionality of state law.; I hope we have responded to your concerns. Please contact my office i you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3337OpenMr. Ray W. Houseal, Osterlund, Inc., 7389 Paxton Street, P.O. Box 4376, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111; Mr. Ray W. Houseal Osterlund Inc. 7389 Paxton Street P.O. Box 4376 Harrisburg Pennsylvania 17111; Dear Mr. Houseal: This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicl identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number*.; The National Highway traffic SAfety Administration does not giv advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4558OpenVicky Johnson, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel Kansas Department of Transportation 7th Floor, Docking State Office Bldg. Topeka, Kansas 66612-1568; Vicky Johnson Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel Kansas Department of Transportation 7th Floor Docking State Office Bldg. Topeka Kansas 66612-1568; "Dear Ms. Johnson: This is a response to your letter asking for m comments on a school transportation issue that has arisen in Kansas. I apologize for the delay in this response. You explained that, in the past, many school districts in your State used vans with more than ten seating positions to transport school children, even though these vehicles were not certified as meeting Federal school bus standards. According to your letter, you informed those school districts that there are 'civil liability risks' associated with transporting students in vehicles that do not meet Federal school bus standards. Further, you said you informed those districts that a manufacturer or dealer who sells a school district a bus that is not a certified school bus may be in violation of Federal law. According to your letter, most of those school districts now recognize the 'considerable risks' associated with this practice. You are concerned that some of these districts are now purchasing the same vehicles that were previously certified as buses, but the vehicles now have only ten seating positions. Accordingly, the vehicles are now certified by the manufacturer as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). You believe that this situation is not a violation of Federal law because dealers are no longer selling school districts 'buses' that are not certified as school buses. However, you believe there is still a considerable risk of civil liability for the school districts in the event of a crash. You asked for our comments on this practice. Generally speaking, there is no violation of Federal law when a dealer sells a properly certified MPV to a school district. On the other hand, NHTSA has maintained a long-standing position that if a dealer sells an MPV or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, that dealer is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with all applicable school bus standards. (40 FR 60033, 60034, December 31, 1975.) For example, let us assume that a dealer sells a school district a vehicle that is certified as an MPV by its manufacturer. The vehicle has ten designated seating positions when it is delivered to the dealer, but is large enough to accommodate an additional bench seat, which would result in the vehicle having at least 13 designated seating positions. In this instance, a dealer who sells such a vehicle to a school district would have violated the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) against selling vehicles that do not comply with all applicable safety standards. In essence, NHTSA has concluded that a dealer may not legally sell a school district a vehicle that is capable of being converted into a school bus, unless: 1. that vehicle is certified as complying with applicable school bus standards, or 2. the dealer has reason to believe that the buyer has no intent of converting and using the vehicle as a school bus. If the dealer is uncertain of the buyer's intent, the agency has suggested that the dealer request a written statement of purpose from the buyer. (Id.) The agency has taken this position because the dealer frequently is the person in the distribution chain with the best knowledge of how a buyer intends to use a vehicle. Applying this reasoning to the situations described in your letter, the dealers selling MPVs to school districts might have done so in violation of Federal law. If the MPVs in question were capable of being converted into school buses, and the dealer had reason to believe that the purchasing school district intended to convert the vehicles to school buses, the dealer could only sell the MPV to the school district if the vehicles were certified as conforming to all applicable school bus standards. Your letter did not provide enough information for us to offer an opinion on any such potential liability. If you know of instances where a dealer may have sold vehicles to a school district under circumstances such as I describe here, please report this information to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, Room 6113, NEF-30 at the address on this letterhead. With respect to your question about the risk of civil liability in the event one of these vehicles is in a crash, that is a question of State, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how the matter would be resolved under Kansas law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Kansas to get an opinion about how the laws of Kansas would apply in such a situation. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. 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.