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: aiam2108OpenMr. Claud Riggs, Mountain States Tire Dealers Association, 1230 Pontiac Street, Denver, CO 80220; Mr. Claud Riggs Mountain States Tire Dealers Association 1230 Pontiac Street Denver CO 80220; Dear Mr. Riggs: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 1, 1975 which included a list of information items you believe are required to appear on retreaded tires pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, *Retreaded Pneumatic Tires*.; With the following qualifications, your list is correct: >>>1. The tire must be labeled with the symbol 'DOT' followed by th letter 'R', and other information required by 49 CFR Part 574.5, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*, as a certification that the tire complies with Standard No. 117. This requirement is distinct from and in addition to the requirement that the casing retain the 'DOT' symbol from its original manufacture.; 2. The words 'bias/belted' are not required, because the actual numbe of plies in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area, are now required to appear.; 3. Tube-type and tubeless tires must be labeled with the specific word 'tube-type' and 'tubeless', respectively.; 4. The items listed in your third group may appear on a paper labe only if that label is not easily removable.<<<; For you convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 117. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5337OpenThe Honorable Doug Bereuter U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-2701; The Honorable Doug Bereuter U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515-2701; Dear Mr. Bereuter: Thank you for your letter concerning a rulemakin related to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle fuel systems and fuel containers. You express concern about the time it is taking to complete the rulemaking. I fully understand your concern over this matter and want to assure you that the agency is working diligently to reach a final decision. The supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking we issued in December 1993 was an essential step toward permitting the use of CNG containers that employ new technologies. We have now reviewed the comments received on this notice and are preparing the final rule. As agency representatives explained when they met with you in December 1993, the final rule will be reviewed by the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget. I hope this information is helpful and appreciate your patience in this matter. Sincerely, Christopher A. Hart Acting Administrator; |
|
ID: aiam4930OpenMs. Sandra Mesh-Witucki McGraw, Borchard & Martin 5200 State Street Saginaw, Michigan 48603; Ms. Sandra Mesh-Witucki McGraw Borchard & Martin 5200 State Street Saginaw Michigan 48603; "Dear Ms. Mesh-Witucki: This responds to your November 1, 1991 lette in which you asked for 'a certified copy of all rules/standards applicable to (a 1987 Chevrolet Cargo Van Conversion) both before and after conversion, and any other information you feel may be of assistance.' Your letter mentioned that you are interested in this information for pending litigation concerning an accident in which this vehicle was involved in which, '(a)llegedly, a rear seat passenger suffered a spinal fracture from the lap belt.' In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff on November 26, 1991, you verified that you are specifically interested in regulations concerning the type of safety belts this vehicle was required to have. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts. The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). S4.2.1 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 1, 1976 and before September 1, 1991. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. Standard No. 208 and all the rest of NHTSA's safety standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. This and all other volumes of the CFR may be purchased by contacting: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Phone: (202) 783-3238 Because the CFR is published by the Government Printing Office, that office is the only source for certified copies of the regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5622OpenMr. Saburo Inui, Vice President Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc. 1850 M. Street, NW Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Saburo Inui Vice President Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America Inc. 1850 M. Street NW Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Inui: This responds to Toyota's August 22, 1995, lette regarding the test procedures in this agency's June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (60 FR 30006). You were concerned that the test procedure seems to say that the service brake should be applied at two different steps during the test procedure, without specifying when the service brake should be released in between those two steps. You suggested a revised procedure that specifies a step for releasing the service brake, and asked if that procedure conforms with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) test requirement. After reviewing the issues raised by your letter, we have concluded that a technical amendment should be issued to clarify the test procedure. We expect to issue such an amendment shortly. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0420OpenMr. Paul Godfrey, Sales Manager, Long Trailer Company, Inc., Route 2, Box 1, Tarboro, NC, 27886; Mr. Paul Godfrey Sales Manager Long Trailer Company Inc. Route 2 Box 1 Tarboro NC 27886; Dear Mr. Godfrey: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1971, to Mr. Ed. Leysath o this office concerning the mounting location of side marker and taillights on your boat trailers.; The mounting requirements for lamps and reflectors are specified i Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed). It appears as if devices mounted as indicated on your drawing would meet the requirements. If, however, severe problems would be encountered in mounting the devices as indicated or the devices would be subjected to damage during normal use, other mountings may be appropriate and still meet the 'as far apart as practicable' or 'as far to the rear as practicable' requirements.; If water damage is the only problem when lamps and reflectors ar mounted in the indicated positions, special waterproof devices are available and could be used.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5272OpenMr. Joe Takacs Director of Engineering Kinedyne Corporation 3701 Greenway Circle Lawrence, KS 66046-5442; Mr. Joe Takacs Director of Engineering Kinedyne Corporation 3701 Greenway Circle Lawrence KS 66046-5442; "Dear Mr. Takacs: This responds to your letter of September 21, 1993 i which you referred to this agency's final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, dated September 3, 1993 (58 FR 46873). You requested our interpretation of that notice as to whether the following is acceptable: 1. The webbing Kinedyne uses in its wheelchair strap assemblies is industrial-type 1 or 2-inch polyester webbing that meets the strength and other requirements of S4.2 of FMVSS 209. 2. The hardware Kinedyne uses on its wheelchair strap assemblies are industrial-type 1 or 2-inch overcenter, ratchet or cam buckles, wire hooks, snap hooks and track fittings, all of which meet the strength and other requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS 209. With regard to the webbing used in your strap assemblies, paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches in width 'except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . .' That means that seat belt webbing must be 1.8 inches in width only where it touches the person of the occupant. The width of webbed belts or straps which secure a wheel chair to the bus floor and do not touch the person of the occupant is not specified in any standard. Accordingly, Kinedyne is free to use belts of 1 inch or some other width, so long as such belts do not touch the person of the occupant and meet the other requirements of S4.2, FMVSS 209. S4.3 of FMVSS 209 addresses a number of requirements for seat belt hardware, including corrosion and temperature resistance, attachment hardware, buckle release, adjustment force, retractor requirements (if applicable), etc. If the hardware Kinedyne uses in fact meet all those requirements, then it would be acceptable. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0070OpenMr. Jon H. Leu, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Jon H. Leu Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Leu: Thank you for your letters of January 15 and March 25, 1968, to th National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to snow removal and heavy duty on-off highway vehicles manufactured by Oshkosh.; Standard No. 108 requires that headlamps be mounted not more than 5 inches above the road surface. Since your snow removal vehicles may be used in hauling operations as a secondary function, and since your heavy duty vehicles are used on the public roads, they are required to be equipped with headlamps located in accordance with Standard No. 108. Additional headlamps mounted on the cab roof or elsewhere on the front of the snow removal vehicle is permitted by the standard.; With reference to your heavy duty vehicles, headlamps located in th bumper, with adequate openings in front of the headlamps, or headlamps located below the bumpers, with protective shields around the headlamps would be permitted by Standard No. 108.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, we must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard. The certification information that you have provided us in your letter of January 15 is in accordance with our requirements.; We trust this information will be of assistance to you in your desir to comply with the existing safety standards.; Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4033OpenStephen T. Waimey, Esq., Dean Hansell, Esq., Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071; Stephen T. Waimey Esq. Dean Hansell Esq. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles CA 90071; Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell: Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1985, concerning th applicability of S7.4.5 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, to manual Type 2 safety belts in passenger cars. As explained below, S7.4.5 is not currently applicable to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars. However, as a result of a recent amendment to Standard No. 208, the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard will be applied to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars, beginning on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirements are rescinded.; As you pointed out, S7.4(b) of Standard No. 208 requires vehicles wit gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less to meet the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard, including the requirements of S7.4.5. However, S7.4(b) specifically excludes manual Type 2 safety belts installed in the front seats of passenger cars from the comfort and convenience requirements. Thus, you are correct that a manual Type 2 safety belt installed in the front outboard seating position of a passenger car currently does not have to meet the requirements of S7.4.5.; In April of this year, the agency issued a notice of propose rulemaking (50 FR 14580) proposing that if the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 are rescinded for passenger cars, then manual Type 2 safety belt systems in those vehicles would have to meet all of the comfort and convenience requirements, including the requirement of S7.4.5, beginning on September 1, 1989. On November 6, 1985 (50 FR 46056), the agency issued a final rule adopting that requirement.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1231OpenMr. Kesao Nishiki, Program Supervisor, International Research & Marketing, The Plaza, 2 West 59th Street, New York, NY, 10010; Mr. Kesao Nishiki Program Supervisor International Research & Marketing The Plaza 2 West 59th Street New York NY 10010; Dear Mr. Nishiki: This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1973, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'. We apologize for the delay in answering your letter, but we did not receive your letter of the above date and the copy we later received does not include the diagram that was apparently attached to your original letter.; You ask whether the weather strip assembly 'used for the sealin between the car body and the door panel' must meet the requirements of the standard. We are unable to answer this question without additional information regarding the placement of the weather strip assembly and its attachment, if any, to the door panel. If you would provide us with this information, we will try to give you a prompt reply.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4463OpenEdwin Speas, Jr., Esq. Special Deputy Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, N.C. 27602-0629; Edwin Speas Jr. Esq. Special Deputy Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh N.C. 27602-0629; "Dear Mr. Speas: I am responding to your letter of July 7, 1987, wher you ask for some assistance with an issue facing your State's public school systems. You stated that some school systems have purchased vans that do not meet Federal school bus specifications. The school systems use these noncomplying vans primarily to transport school teachers and administrators, but the vans sometimes are used to transport students to extracurricular activities. You ask two questions. The first question is whether Federal law prohibits a school system from using a van to transport students to extracurricular activities if the van does not meet Federal school bus standards. The second question is whether the Secretary of Transportation has adopted a regulation defining the term 'significantly' as that term appears in 15 U.S.C. /1391(14). The 1974 amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act or VSA) apply to any person manufacturing or selling a new 'school bus.' NHTSA defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold or introduced into interstate commerce for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. The VSA does not regulate the manner in which a person, including a school district, uses a vehicle it purchases. Therefore, the answer to your first question is that Federal law does not prohibit a school district from transporting students in a noncomplying vehicle. On the other hand, the seller of these vans may have sold them in violation of Federal law if the seller had reason to know from factors such as the identity or activities of the purchaser that the purchaser intended to use or convert the vans to school buses. When NHTSA proposed to amend the definition of 'school bus' in consequence of the 1974 VSA amendments, we anticipated that there may be circumstances in which a manufacturer has no reason to know that one of its dealers has sold one of its vehicles as a school bus. The agency expressly stated in the preamble to the proposal that if a dealer knowingly sold any multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, then the dealer would be responsible for certifying the vehicle's compliance with school bus standards. 40 FR 40854, September 4, 1975. NHTSA maintains its long-standing position that the seller is the person in the chain of distribution most likely to know of a vehicle's intended use, and remains accountable for selling a vehicle as a school bus if the seller has reason to know whether the buyer intends such use. 40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975. Your second question involves the term 'schoolbus' as it is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, /102(14) 15 U.S.C. /1391(14) . That provision reads: ''Schoolbus' means 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.' (Emphasis supplied.) You ask whether the Secretary has adopted a regulation that defines the term 'significantly' as it is used in this statutory provision. The answer is no. The question of whether a motor vehicle is 'likely to be significantly used' for transporting students is one that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing upon the intended use of the vehicle. However, in the final rule amending the definition of 'school bus,' the agency stated its view that 'the Congressional emphasis on 'significant use' of a vehicle (is) a direction to extend the school bus standards to all buses that transport students, whether or not it is their primary purpose.' 40 FR 60033, 60034. Emphasis supplied. In expressing this view, NHTSA specifically rejected a Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) suggestion that the agency find 'significant use' only where a bus was to be used 'primarily' for transporting students. Id. Emphasis supplied. Therefore, when the agency considers 'significant use,' the question of whether a vehicle primarily transports school staff is not determinative. I hope you find this information helpful. 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.