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: aiam4576OpenRaymond F. Brady, Esq. 1216 N.W. 8th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601; Raymond F. Brady Esq. 1216 N.W. 8th Avenue Gainesville FL 32601; "Dear Mr. Brady: This responds to your letter asking whether certai seats in a limousine would be considered 'designated seating positions' within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR /571.3. You stated that the seats in question are two free-standing, rearward facing passenger seats installed in the rear passenger compartment of a limousine. According to your letter, these seats are mounted to the floor and do not fold into the back of another seat, nor are these seats labeled to indicate that they are not designated for occupancy while the limousine is in motion. In a February 24, 1989 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that the vehicles in which these seats are installed have not previously been sold for purposes other than resale. If the situation is as described in your letter, these seats would be considered 'designated seating positions' within the meaning of 49 CFR /571.3. Title 49 CFR /571.3 defines a 'designated seating position' as follows: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. The seats described in your letter appear to be capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female. Further, the overall seat configuration and design and the limousine's design is such that these seats appear likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. Finally, the seats do not appear to be auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. For a more complete explanation of what type of seats the agency considers to be 'auxiliary seating accommodations,' I have enclosed an April 28, 1971 letter from this agency to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota. Based on these conclusions, this agency would consider each of the two rear facing seats to be 'designated seating positions.' If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3319OpenMr. Dennis Newton, School Pupil Transportation, Kansas Department of Transportation, State Office Building, Topeka, KS 66612; Mr. Dennis Newton School Pupil Transportation Kansas Department of Transportation State Office Building Topeka KS 66612; Dear Mr. Newton: This responds to your June 2, 1980, letter asking whether a school bu that is to be sold to a school district in your State will meet the Federal minimum requirements applicable to gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) and gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR).; To the best of my knowledge, the Federal government has no minimu specifications for GAWR or GVWR. Certainly, this agency does not specify minimum weight ratings. Our only requirement is that the GAWR and GVWR be appropriate for the size and weight of a vehicle taking into consideration the type of equipment installed on it. From the information that you have provided us, we cannot say that the vehicle in question would or would not comply with that requirement. It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the Federal safety standards. No school bus manufacturer can sell you a school bus that they know will not comply with the requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1324OpenMr. Paul R. Hodgson, Attorney At Law, 420 Harvard Tower, 4815 South Harvard Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135; Mr. Paul R. Hodgson Attorney At Law 420 Harvard Tower 4815 South Harvard Avenue Tulsa Oklahoma 74135; Dear Mr. Hodgson: This is in reply to your letter of October 26,, 1973, requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Paragraph S3.2.1.2 (Mounting).; Paragraph S3.2.1.2 requires, in part, that the outside mirror on th driver's side be capable of adjustment from the driver's seated position. The purpose of this requirements is to ensure that any necessary adjustment of the mirror can be readily accomplished without affecting the continued safe operation of the vehicle in motion. I for some reason the position of the outside mirror were altered so as to obstruct the clear view of the driver to the rear, he would be compelled to leave the highway and remove himself from the vehicle in order to make an adjustment. This possibility defeats one of the purposes of paragraph S3.2.1.2.; Paragraph S3.2.1.2 also provides that the mirror shall not be obscure by the unwiped portion of the windshield. As you stated in your letter, the curvature of the Traveco windshield will not afford an unobscured view of the mirror in that the mirror only retains about 80% of its visibility in the rain and snow. Visibility of 80% does not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 111.; In summary, the mounting you have suggested for rearview mirrors on th Traveco motor homes is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Paragraph S3.2.1.2 of Standard No. 111. However, pursuant to section 108 (b)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act, the nonconforming mirrors you have described may be installed if the installation is accomplished after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. You should also be aware that a revision of the standard is presently under consideration which may have an effect on the future compliance of the mirrors.; We appreciate your inquiry. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4126OpenMr. Paul Utans, Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Subaru of America, Inc., 7040 Central Highway, Pennsauken, NJ 08109; Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Governmental Affairs Subaru of America Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennsauken NJ 08109; Dear Mr. Utans: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the Par 581, Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle with an adjustable suspension height control system is tested at the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position. You stated that the very reason that adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) would be defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings.; As discussed below, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must b capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted.; As noted by your letter, section 581.6 of the Bumper Standard set forth conditions applicable to bumper testing. For example, the vehicle is at unloaded vehicle weight, the front wheels are in the straight ahead position, etc. The standard does not, however, include a test condition specifically addressing suspension height.; Given the absence of the specific test condition concerning suspensio height, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted. There is no language in the test requirements of the standard limiting their applicability to 'the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position.'; This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Bumpe Standard, set forth in section 581.2, to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed collisions. If a vehicle's suspension could be adjusted so that its bumper height resulted in bumper mismatch with other vehicles in the event of low speed collisions, the reduction in physical damage attributable to the Bumper Standard would be defeated in whole or part.; We appreciate your concern that the very reason that the adjustabl height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cited reasons along those lines in a notice published in the *Federal Register* (49 FR 34049) denying petitions for rulemaking to establish safety requirements for bumpers on vehicles *other* than those covered by Part 581. If the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0165OpenMr. J. J. Serota, General Counsel, Grumman Allied Industries, Inc., 600 Old Country Road, Roosevelt Field, garden City, NY 11532; Mr. J. J. Serota General Counsel Grumman Allied Industries Inc. 600 Old Country Road Roosevelt Field garden City NY 11532; Dear Mr. Serota: This is in further response to your letter dated April 9, 1969 addressed to Robert M. O'Mahoney, which has been referred to this Bureau.; The location you have selected on the windshield wiper motor bracket as shown in your enclosed drawing number 69028, sheet 2, is approved as an alternative to the specified locations. We note, however, that you intend to use binding-head screws as your method of attachment. This method does not appear to fulfill the requirements of permanency and destruction on removal in section 367.4(b) of the Certification Regulations, 49 CFR Part 367.; As issued January 24, 1969 (34 F.R. 1148) the above section reads: 'Th label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without the use of tools and without destroying it.' a proposal issued on April 29, 1969 (34 F.R. 7032) would amend the section to read: 'The label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying it.' The requirements of permanency and destruction on removal remain in both versions.; Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director |
|
ID: aiam2158OpenMr. S. L. Smead, Motocross Engineers, Inc., P.O. Box 861, Wilbraham, MA 01095; Mr. S. L. Smead Motocross Engineers Inc. P.O. Box 861 Wilbraham MA 01095; Dear Mr. Smead: This is in response to your letter of February 6, 1976, concerning th application of 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*, to certain off-road motorcycle tires that you plan to import.; 'Motor vehicle' is defined in Section 102(3) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as:; >>>any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<; The Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation does not apply t tires that are not manufactured for use on motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it appears that the vehicles for which the tires in question are designed are not motor vehicles. Therefore, unless these tires are also designed for use on other vehicles that do meet the statutory definition of 'motor vehicle', they are not subject to any labeling requirements of the Department of Transportation.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5367OpenMr. Fred Carr, Engineer Utilimaster 65266 State Road 19 P. O. Box 585 Wakarusa, IN 46573-0585; Mr. Fred Carr Engineer Utilimaster 65266 State Road 19 P. O. Box 585 Wakarusa IN 46573-0585; "Dear Mr. Carr: This responds to your question asking whether Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to 'motor vehicle equipment relating to light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty trucks or truck manufacturers.' As explained below, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. S2. Application of Standard No. 211 states the following: This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment. 'Multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less, which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Since Standard No. 211 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and their equipment, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. 'Truck' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. Accordingly, manufacturers of trucks or truck equipment are not required to certify their trucks and truck equipment to the requirements of Standard No. 211. I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0535OpenMr. H. D. Blackburn, Vice President Engineering, Miller Trailers, Inc., 333 Sixth Avenue, West, Bradenton, FL 33505; Mr. H. D. Blackburn Vice President Engineering Miller Trailers Inc. 333 Sixth Avenue West Bradenton FL 33505; Dear Mr. Blackburn: This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1972, enclosing a cop of your drawing SKB-2103B and asking whether the vehicle lighting therein depicted is in compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Generally, the location of the lamps in the drawing appear i accordance with the location requirements of Standard No. 108. Front clearance and identification lamps, however, must be placed 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle' which, in the configuration illustrated is usually the truck body and not the cab.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2508OpenMr. W. G. Whitehead, Manager, Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs, Union Carbide Corporation, 270 Park Avenue, new York, N.Y. 10017; Mr. W. G. Whitehead Manager Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs Union Carbide Corporation 270 Park Avenue new York N.Y. 10017; Dear Mr. Whitehead: This responds to your January 31, 1977, question whether Safet Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*, currently requires a border around the safety warnings that are required to be placed on brake fluid containers.; Standard No. 116 was recently amended (41 FR 54942, December 16, 1976 to specify color coding requirements for hydraulic brake system fluids and to make a minor change in the required warning label. The proposal preceding this amendment did specify that the safety warnings on brake fluid containers be surrounded by a color coded border (40 FR 56928, December 5, 1975). However, after reviewing the comments submitted regarding the cost of the proposed borders and after reevaluating the expected safety benefits, the agency has decided to withdraw the proposed requirements. The final rule, therefore, did not include a requirement for color borders.; Although Standard No. 116 does not require a border around the safet warnings on brake fluid containers, manufacturers are permitted to use a border if they choose.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4825OpenLennard S. Loewentritt, Esq. Deputy Associate General Counsel Personal Property Division General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405; Lennard S. Loewentritt Esq. Deputy Associate General Counsel Personal Property Division General Services Administration Washington D.C. 20405; "Dear Mr. Loewentritt: This responds to your November 7, 1990 lette requesting further clarification with regard to my August 23, 1990 letter to you. 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply 'to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.' In my August letter, I stated that school buses purchased by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the sole use of the Army would be considered to fall within this exception. This interpretation was based on the assumption that GSA acts as a purchasing agent for the Army, and that the buses were actually sold to the Army, albeit indirectly. In your recent letter, you stated that this assumption was erroneous. While GSA's Automotive Center does act as a purchasing agent for some agencies, the vehicles in question would be purchased for the GSA's Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS). Vehicles in the IFMS 'are assigned on an indefinite basis to agencies that have had their fleets consolidated into the IFMS.' You stated that the Army has consolidated their nontactical vehicles into the IFMS. In this case then, the GSA would be purchasing buses which are intended for 'indefinite assignment to and sole use by the Army for the purpose of transporting troops as well as transporting military dependents to and from school.' You stated that these vehicles would be manufactured in conformity with contractual specifications 'which reflect the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for buses rather than school bus specifications.' Given this clarification of GSA's role, you again asked if these buses would fall within the exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c). The answer to your question would be yes, if the purchase contract specifies that the buses should not be certified as school buses in order to serve the needs of the Armed Forces. In these circumstances, we see no meaningful difference between a sale directly to an element of the Armed Forces and a sale to GSA's IFMS intended for exclusive and indefinite assignment to the Army. In announcing this conclusion, I want to make several points. In the interest of safety, I strongly recommend that the contract specify compliance with the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended use of the bus. Also, if reassignment of these buses to another agency is ever contemplated, I would appreciate your undertaking to ensure that they would only be used for transporting adults. I hope this response is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.