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: aiam1495OpenMr. D. L. Massy, Chief Engineer, American Snowblast Corporation, 4695 Ironton Street, Denver, CO 80239; Mr. D. L. Massy Chief Engineer American Snowblast Corporation 4695 Ironton Street Denver CO 80239; Dear Mr. Massy: In response to your May 13, 1974, question whether Standard No. 121 *Air brake systems*, has been delayed one year for vehicles which have 'drive on the front axle and front axle load of 18,000 pounds or more,' I would like to summarize our recent amendment of the standard.; On May 14, 1974, we delayed the effective date of the standard for al trucks and buses until March 1, 1975. Thereafter, trucks manufactured before September 1, 1975, that have a front steerable axle with a GAWR of 16,000 pounds or more, or a front steerable drive axle, need not meet certain stopping distance requirements if their brakes meet the retardation formula and values found elsewhere in the standard. These vehicles must still stay in the 12-foot lane and, during service brake stops, their wheels must not lock-up except for antilock-controlled lock-up. After September 1, 1975, the standard applies in full to this category of trucks.; There have been several additional changes in the standard which woul affect your products. They were published May 17, 1974, in the *Federal Register* (39 FR 17750).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3502OpenJerry Manzagol, Director, New Mexico Transportation Department, Motor Vehicle Division, Manuel Lujan Senior Building, Santa Fe, NM 87503; Jerry Manzagol Director New Mexico Transportation Department Motor Vehicle Division Manuel Lujan Senior Building Santa Fe NM 87503; Dear Mr. Manzagol: This is in response to your letter of October 13, 1981, requesting th approval of the New Mexico odometer disclosure form for use in lieu of the Federal odometer disclosure form.; The Odometer Disclosure Requirements (49 CFR Part 580) provide that th transferor of a vehicle may make the disclosure required by the Federal odometer laws on the state certificate of title, if the state title document contains essentially the same information required on the Federal odometer disclosure statement. If the information contained on the state certificate of title varies from that required by the Federal form, the state must obtain the approval of this agency before its certificate of title can be used as a substitute for the Federal form.; In order to spare states the burden of an approval process the agenc has indicated that certain variations from the Federal form are acceptable. In the *Federal Register* notice of August 1, 1977, which amended the disclosure regulations, we gave examples of shortened forms that would be acceptable. A state document can be considered to be approved for use as a full disclosure statement if it varies from the Federal form in only those aspects noted in the August 1, 1977, notice, a copy of which is enclosed.; The agency has reviewed New Mexico's proposed odometer disclosur statement and has determined that it cannot be substituted for the Federal disclosure statement. New Mexico's proposed statement contains four alternate certifications concerning the accuracy of the mileage from which the seller must select the appropriate certification. The third alternate certification requires the seller to certify that the odometer reading is the mileage since the odometer was reset and to disclose the mileage before the odometer was reset. This certification permits conduct that violates the Federal odometer law.; The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ('Act') prohibit resetting the odometer with the intent to change the miles except as provided by the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1984, 1985. The Act permits resetting the odometer during the lawful repair or replacement of the odometer but specifically requires that the odometer reading be reset to either the mileage before repair or replacement or to zero. The third alternate certification suggests that the odometer can be rest to any reading and for other than repair purposes. Since such conduct violate the Act, the certification should be rephrased to permit resetting the odometer reading only in accordance with the repair and replacement provisions of the Act.; In addition, the New Mexico form does not provide for the signature o the transferee as required by the regulations. 49 CFR 580.4(e). The transferee's signature substantiates that the buyer has seen the odometer disclosure statement and is aware of the mileage that the vehicle has been driven and, therefore, must be included on the state odometer disclosure statement.; If the third alternate certification is rephrased to comport with th repair and replacement provisions of the Act and the transferee's signature is added, New Mexico's disclosure statement can be substituted for use in lieu of the Federal form. However, if New Mexico adopts language in its disclosure statement that varies from that contained in the August 1, 1977, *Federal Register* notice, please submit the disclosure statement to the agency for approval.; Sincerely, David W. Allen, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2743OpenJestyn G. Payne, Rhoda, Stoudt, & Bradley, P.O. Box 877, Reading, PA 19603; Jestyn G. Payne Rhoda Stoudt & Bradley P.O. Box 877 Reading PA 19603; Dear Mr. Payne: This is in response to your letter of December 23, 1977, requestin clarification as to whether the modified Odometer Disclosure Form which you prepared would meet the Federal requirements. Specifically, you are requesting permission to inform the buyer of the vehicle that the mileage is unknown because the vehicle was subject to a commercial lease. It has been the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that if the seller does not know that the mileage indicated is wrong, he should not state that the mileage is unknown. More than mere lack of knowledge is necessary to check the mileage unknown box. The seller is not, however, precluded from adding a statement that the vehicle was subject to a commercial lease or otherwise outside of his control.; It appears from the form which you submitted that you are modifying th disclosure statement which is no longer to be used. The form was substantially changed, with those amendments to be effective as of January 1, 1978. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Register notice of the amendments. Your client must certify to the accuracy of the odometer to the best of his or her knowledge under the amendments, however, as I stated before, he or she is free to add additional statements explaining the vehicle's history.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5086OpenLawrence A. Beyer, Esq. 674 Lake Road Webster, N.Y. 14580; Lawrence A. Beyer Esq. 674 Lake Road Webster N.Y. 14580; "Dear Mr. Beyer: This responds to your FAX of September 22, 1992, t Taylor Vinson of this Office with reference to your request to become a Registered Importer ('RI'). We interpret your letter as seeking an opinion on your eligibility to submit an application to become an RI under 49 CFR 592. Because of your representation of RIs, you are familiar with the record keeping mechanisms and other regulatory requirements of this agency. Your intent is to perform modifications on those Canadian vehicles which require only minor modifications, and you have a 3-car garage, tools including pneumatics, and storage space. You would have in your employ several people qualified to perform the modifications required. You are aware that, in promulgating Part 592, NHTSA specificaly rejected a proposal to allow RIs to designate agents to perform conformance work, thus you would not accept vehicles requiring major modifications, but would refer those to the other RIs. Section 592.5 sets forth the requirements for registration as an RI. According to paragraph 592.5(a), 'any person' may file an application. An application must contain the information specified by the subparagraphs of paragraph (a). We note no restrictions upon who is eligible to apply for RI status. We therefore see no legal impediment to your submitting an application under section 592.5. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) has the authority to grant or deny applications for RI status. Your application must, therefore, contain arguments sufficient to convince OVSC of your ability to perform the limited modifications that you contemplate. We advise you, therefore, to set out with specificity in your application the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which you have the capability to conform vehicles, and the standards for which you have not. We would like to make clear that, in the event a vehicle requires major modifications, our regulations would not allow you to bring the vehicle into partial conformance before transfering the vehicle to another RI for to complete the conformance process. An RI must certify the conformance work to NHTSA, and paragraph 592.6(e) requires the RI's certification to state that 'it is the person legally responsible for bringing the vehicle into conformity.' We interpret that as meaning that the certifier itself performed all the conformance work and did not resort to an agent. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3851OpenMr. David A. White, Senior Safety Engineer, Grumman Olson, 70180 Centerville Road, Sturgis, MI 49091; Mr. David A. White Senior Safety Engineer Grumman Olson 70180 Centerville Road Sturgis MI 49091; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your letter of May 3, 1984, asking about Standard No 101, *Controls and Displays*. Your letter concerned requirements applicable to a proposed design for an instrument panel which would include controls for heating fan, windshield wiper and washer, and defrosting system. The controls would be identified both by the symbol specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 and the relevant word listed in that table. You asked whether the symbols are required to be illuminated or whether it is permissible instead to illuminate the identifying words without illuminating the symbols. As discussed below, your interpretation of the standard that the symbols must be illuminated is correct.; By way of background information, I would note that the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 101 generally requires that 'an hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol.' The section states further that '(s)uch a control may, in addition, be identified by the word heating fan, windshield wiper and washer, and defroster system, all are listed in column 1 and have symbols designated in column 3. Thus, the identification required by section S5.2.1 for these controls are the symbols designated in column 3. Use of the words shown in column 2 in addition to the mandatory symbols is permissible but not required.; Section S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states: >>>Except for foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounte upon the floor, floor console, or steering column, or in the windshield header area, the *identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. However, control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield....(Emphasis added.)<<<; As discussed above, the identification required by section S5.2.1 fo the three controls are the symbols designated in column 3. Since each of the three controls is accompanied by the word 'yes' in column 4, the required symbols must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. It is thus not permissible to illuminate the identifying words without also illuminating the symbols.; I would note that your letter does not provide sufficient informatio to determine whether the controls in your proposed design could come within any of Standard No. 101's exceptions to the illumination requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2719OpenMr. Paul Jones, Kentucky Department of Education, Frankfurt, KY 40601; Mr. Paul Jones Kentucky Department of Education Frankfurt KY 40601; Dear Mr. Jones: This responds to your oral request to Roger Tilton of my staf concerning the applicability of the new Federal school bus safety standards to vans transporting 10 or more school children to or from school or related events.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgate safety standards applicable to all school buses. School bus is defined in Part 571.3 of our regulations (Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3) to mean a bus sold or introduced in interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. In turn, bus is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' More than 10 person means 10 passengers or more plus a driver. Accordingly, any vehicle sold or introduced in interstate commerce to transport school children which carries 10 or more passengers to or from school or related events must comply with all of the new Federal school bus requirements. This includes vans which fall within that passenger capacity.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1836OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1975, asking whethe paragraph S5.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) permits the words Emergency Exit' to be placed above the emergency door in a school bus, or whether they must be within six inches of the emergency door release mechanism. You argue that placing the nomenclature above the door provides a more prominent identification of the exit than does placing it within 6 inches of the release mechanism.; We believe the interpretation of S5.5.1 which you suggest i appropriate when applied to rear door emergency exits in school buses. We have not previously considered school buses containing this type of emergency exit labeling to fail to conform to the standard. In addition, our recent proposal regarding school bus emergency exits (39 FR 8569, copy enclosed) would specifically require emergency exit labeling of this type.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5526OpenMs. Merridy R. Gottlieb 4 Duchess Court Baltimore, MD 21237; Ms. Merridy R. Gottlieb 4 Duchess Court Baltimore MD 21237; Dear Ms. Gottlieb: This responds to your letter of February 14, 1995 requesting an 'exemption' from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow a business to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter states: I am disabled and need 3-4' of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent for long periods of time, I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all the way out, there is no pain at all. You state that you were told that this modification cannot be done as it would 'interfere with the functionality of the air bag.' In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below. I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted an exemption from NHTSA to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. Moving a seat could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in a vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle installed air bags as the means of complying with Standard No. 208's requirement. Your modifier is concerned that the modification of the seat would 'make inoperative' the air bag. I would like to note that accident data would suggest that a person is at greater risk of injury from an air bag from sitting too close to the air bag, rather than further away from the air bag. However, I understand that, due to the dynamic testing requirement, the modifier will be unable to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 208's requirements. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the 'make inoperative' prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0374OpenMr. Richard I. Moss, Washington Representative, Trailer Coach Association, 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 922, Arlington, VA 22209; Mr. Richard I. Moss Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association 1800 North Kent Street Suite 922 Arlington VA 22209; Dear Mr. Moss: This is in reply to your letter of June 7, requesting interpretation of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.; First, with respect to Standard No. 207, you have asked whethe designated seating positions must be labeled as such. Our response is that the labeling section requires labels on seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion but does not require designated seating positions to be labeled.; With respect to the nature and content of the label on a seat no designated for occupancy, the standard states that the seat must be 'conspicuously labeled to that effect.' There are thus two general requirements: that the label be conspicuous and that it indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. The requirement for conspicuousness relates to the location of the label and the prominence of its lettering. Generally speaking, it would have to be located so that it could be seen by a person preparing to occupy the seat and of a size that could be read by the occupant in the normal motion of sitting. The statement on the label must clearly indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, but the exact wording is left to the manufacturer.; Standard No. 208 requires that MPV's and trucks with a GVWR of les than 10,000 pounds, manufactured from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1975, must elect either a passive protection system or a seat belt system that requires Type 2 seat belt assemblies at outboard designated seating positions that include the windshield header within the head impact area. A similar requirement, without the passive option, goes into effect July 1, 1971, for these vehicles. Your question is whether, if a seating position does not have the windshield header within the head impact area, it is permitted to have a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Our response is that the standard permits a Type 1 belt for such a position.; Please advise us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2349OpenMr. Russell H. Berry, Jr., Marketing Specialist, 'Lucite' Acrylic Sheet Products, 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19898; Mr. Russell H. Berry Jr. Marketing Specialist 'Lucite' Acrylic Sheet Products 1007 Market Street Wilmington DE 19898; Dear Mr. Berry: This is in response to your letter of April 9, 1976, concerning th certification and marking requirements for glazing specified in Section 6 of Standard No. 205, *Glazing* Materials. You asked whether the standard prohibits use of the 'DOT' symbol and manufacturer's code number by anyone other than a 'prime glazing material manufacturer,' as that term is defined in paragraph S6.1.; Our letter to Dupont explained the separate certification and markin requirements that are applicable to glazing prepared by prime glazing material manufacturers, distributors, and vehicle manufacturers. The standard specifies that the 'DOT' symbol shall be placed on glazing that is designed by the prime glazing material manufacturer as a component of any specific motor vehicle. The agency's interpretations of several years ago pointed out that the standard requires a person other than a prime glazing manufacturer who cuts glazing materials to mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 and to certify it in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. These interpretations emphasized that a person who cuts and shapes the glazing material received from a prime glazing manufacturer should not include the 'DOT' symbol in his marking and certification.; At the time of the earlier interpretations, the NHTSA considered i necessary from the standpoint of enforcement to distinguish between glazing that had been manufactured by the prime glazing manufacturer for use in specific motor vehicles and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered by another party before installation. The agency was also concerned that the use of the 'DOT' symbol by anyone other than the prime glazing manufacturer would be misleading and could create confusion.; Since that time, the certification procedures have become more widel understood and uniformly practiced throughout the industry, and this has aided the 'traceability' of glazing materials for enforcement purposes. Therefore, the agency no longer prohibits the use of the 'DOT' symbol and the prime glazing manufacturer's code number by the distributor or manufacturer who cuts the glazing, if the prime glazing manufacturer grants permission for such use of his code number to the distributor or manufacturer.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.