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: aiam4969OpenMr. Wm. Richard Alexander Chief, Pupil Transportation Maryland State Department of Education Office of Administration and Finance 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201; Mr. Wm. Richard Alexander Chief Pupil Transportation Maryland State Department of Education Office of Administration and Finance 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore MD 21201; Dear Mr. Alexander: This responds to your letter of February 18, 199 requesting confirmation 'that forward-facing wheelchairs on school buses do not need a crash barrier located forward of each wheelchair position.' As explained below, your understanding is correct. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires 'a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point.' Under S5.2.1, the rear surface of the restraining barrier must be within a distance of 24 inches or less from the seating reference point. Standard No. 222's requirement for a restraining barrier does not apply to wheelchair positions. First, a wheelchair position is not technically a 'designated seating position,' as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Second, Standard No. 222's seating requirements apply only to 'school bus passenger seats.' See S1 of Standard No. 222. The term 'school bus passenger seat' is defined in S4 as 'a seat in a school bus, other than the driver's seat or a seat installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers.' I would also note that installing a crash barrier forward of a wheelchair securement location in compliance with S5.2.1 would appear to be impractical. First, the seating reference point could move depending on the type of wheelchair secured at the location. Second, many wheelchairs would not fit behind a restraining barrier complying with S5.2.1 as some are longer than 24 inches forward of the seating reference point. While the current requirements of Standard No. 222 do not have any requirements for wheelchair securement locations, NHTSA is concerned about providing crash protection for all students on school buses. NHTSA has recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems on school buses. The notice proposed amending Standard No. 222 to include minimum strength and location requirements for the anchorages for securement and restraint devices and minimum strength requirements for the securement and restraint devices themselves. This notice did not, however, propose to require a restraining barrier forward of wheelchair securement locations. I am enclosing a copy of the notice for your information. I hope you find this information helpful. 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: aiam0479OpenMr. Paul F. Bennett, Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company, City of Industry, CA, 91747; Mr. Paul F. Bennett Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company City of Industry CA 91747; Dear Mr. Bennett: This is in replay to your letter of October 28. We understand your apparent problem in mounting the middl identification lamp on the vertical centerline, near the extreme height of the vehicle. Since it is apparently impracticable to mount the lamps at this height, their relocation to a position under the door opening would appear to meet the requirement that identification lamps to mounted 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle' (Table II, Standard No. 108).; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5381OpenThe Honorable John A. Boehner Member, United States House of Representatives 5617 Liberty Fairfield Road Hamilton, Ohio 45011; The Honorable John A. Boehner Member United States House of Representatives 5617 Liberty Fairfield Road Hamilton Ohio 45011; "Dear Congressman Boehner: This responds to your letter of April 7 1994, to the Department of Transportation (DOT) on behalf of your constituents, John Cail Sr. and James Lipps of Eaton. Messrs. Cail and Lipps have requested your assistance in obtaining DOT 'approval and color code designation' for their 'Life Lites' system. This is a stop lamp system consisting of two 18-inch long 1/2-inch wide devices intended to be mounted on the front of a vehicle alongside the windshield pillars, to emit a light of either purple or coral. The system is activated with the rear stop lamps when the brakes are applied, and it is intended to warn observers to the front of a vehicle that the vehicle is braking. It 'could be mounted to most existing vehicles and could be readily incorporated into new car designs.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)is the component of DOT that is responsible for motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act does not authorize NHTSA to 'approve' or disapprove safety inventions such as Life Lites. We do advise, however, whether such inventions are permitted under the Act and applicable regulations such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a device may be permitted under NHTSA laws must not be interpreted as our approval or endorsement of it. The standard that applies to motor vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Life Lites emitting either color may be installed as original equipment by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the frontal lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 such as headlamps and turn signals. The materials you enclosed show a color closeup newspaper photo of a Life Lite in operation, its relatively low output does not appear sufficient to impair headlamp effectiveness. There would be concern, however, if it were to distract attention from an operating turn signal and, in this sense, impair its effectiveness. However, the responsibility for determining whether supplemental original lighting equipment impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment rests with the installer, and NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. Life Lites that are sold in the aftermarket and intended for vehicles in use, are prohibited by the Act if their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business 'knowingly renders inoperative, in whole or part' the required motor vehicle lighting equipment. Though the words are different between the Act and Standard No. 108, in this instance we would equate partial inoperability with impairment of effectiveness and the same considerations would apply. However, the Act does not prohibit vehicle owners under any circumstances from installing Life Lites themselves if they are able to do so. But the legality of Life Lites of either color and under any scenario remains subject to the laws of any State in which the device is operated. We are unable to advise your constituents of the laws of the individual States, and suggest that they write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2444OpenCharles O. Verrill, Jr., Esq., Messrs. Patton, Boggs, & Blow, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Charles O. Verrill Jr. Esq. Messrs. Patton Boggs & Blow 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1976, to th Administrator with respect to the Ryan tote- trailer manufactured by your client, Outboard Marine Corporation. You have asked whether the tote-trailer is a 'motor vehicle' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), if the answer is affirmative you have asked whether the tote trailer is a 'pole trailer' as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b), if the answer is negative, you have asked that any failure to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; In our opinion the tote- trailer is a 'motor vehicle' within th meaning of S 1391(3). Although the equipment that it carries is intended for off-road use, the tote trailer with load is hauled from place to place by motor vehicles, as depicted in the sales literature, that operate on the public roads. It has been our continuing opinion that vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. As your letter indicates, the trailer is purchased by rental agencies and 'is likely to be towed on the public roads and highways.' We therefore have concluded that the tote trailer is 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways' and falls within the coverage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; It is also our conclusion that the tote trailer is not a 'pole trailer as defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b). The tote trailer is attached to the towing vehicle by a conventional tongue and not 'by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle.' In addition, the load does not appear capable of sustaining itself as a beam between the supporting connections.; Therefore, it appears from your letter that all tote trailer manufactured since January 1, 1969, have not been equipped with lighting devices required by 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*, that those manufactured since January 1, 1972, have not been provided with GAWR and GVWR figures on the certification labels required by 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, and that those manufactured since September 1, 1976, may have not been equipped with tires required by 49 CFR 571.120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; If your client wishes to submit a petition for inconsequentiality w request that it follow the format in proposed 49 CFR Part 566, copy enclosed. You may refer any questions on this matter to Mr. Vinson of my staff.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0029OpenMr. E.L. Koepenick, Secretary-Treasurer, Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association, Inc., 7979 Old Georgetown Road, Washington, D.C. 20014; Mr. E.L. Koepenick Secretary-Treasurer Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association Inc. 7979 Old Georgetown Road Washington D.C. 20014; Dear Mr. Koepenick: #Thank you for your letter addressed to Dr. Haddon dated June 19, 1967, which has been referred to me for reply to your inquiry concerning the effect of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on fire trucks. #The purpose of Standard No. 107 is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces in the driver's field of view will hinder the safe and normal operation of the motor vehicle. At present, paragraph S4, 'Requirements,' only covers windshield wiper arms and blades, inside windshield mouldings(sic), horn rings and hub of the steering wheel, and inside rearview mirror frame and mounting bracket. #The initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards contain no mandatory requirement for seat belt installations or seat belt anchorages in trucks. However, if seat belts are installed in truck they must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, effective March 1, 1967. #Sincerely, George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2014OpenG. Buzzi-Ferraris, Pirelli Tire Corporation, 600 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016; G. Buzzi-Ferraris Pirelli Tire Corporation 600 Third Avenue New York N.Y. 10016; Dear Mr. Buzzi-Ferraris: #Please forgive the delay in responding t your letter of May 5, 1975, which inquired about the permissibility of iron-branding the letters 'N.A.' on the sidewall of certain passenger car tires to indicate that they are not adjustable under your warranty. #Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires-Passenger Cars*, Specifies labeling and performance requirements for such tires. The NHTSA has no objection to the provision of additional labeling information such as the 'N.A.' which you have suggested. However, the tire must continue to be capable of meeting the standard's performance requirements at the completion of the hot-branding process. #Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2501OpenMr. George I. Whiston, Mechanical Section Engineer, British Standards Institution, Head Office 2 Park Street, London W1A2BS; Mr. George I. Whiston Mechanical Section Engineer British Standards Institution Head Office 2 Park Street London W1A2BS; Dear Mr. Whiston: This responds to the British Standards Institution's December 2, 1976 request to know what constitutes 'first purchase of a new motor vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale' as this phrase is used on (sic) S 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1397(b)(1) and S 567.7 of NHTSA regulations (*Part 567--Certification*). You also ask to know the legal basis for any distinction between 'original equipment' and 'replacement equipment' as those terms are used in regulation of motor vehicles and equipment in the United States.; I can confirm your understanding of S 567.7 of our regulations, as se forth in the statements which you designate as '(a)' and '(b)'. With regard to statement '(b)', S 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle incompliance (sic) with an applicable standard. Thus a dealer could not make the sunroof alteration if he knew that installation rendered inoperative the minimum roof crush capabilities specified by Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*.; Your statement designated '(c)' is not necessarily correct. The NHTSA' interpretation of the meaning of 'first purchase' relies substantially on the modifier 'in good faith.' Thus the agency evaluates the circumstances of the purchase with a view to whether or not there is an attempt to circumvent the requirements of law and applicable regulation. For example, when purchasers asked for disconnection of ignition interlock systems by dealers after contracting for the purchase of a vehicle, the agency required that bona fide physical delivery take place without an immediate return of the vehicle to the dealer for disconnection. As a practical matter, the new provision of the Act discussed above (S 108(a)(1)(A)) prohibits dealer action of this type in the future.; Since the 1974 amendments to the Act, there has been a distinctio between 'original equipment' and 'replacement equipment'. I have enclosed a copy of our proposal to implement this distinction for purposes of Federal regulation. I believe your question actually addresses the practices of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. You may wish to contact one or more of those organizations for an answer to your questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2151OpenMr. George H. Schildge, Exec. Vice President, Conti Rubber Products, 4900 Hannover Place, P.O. Box 1638, Fremont, California 94538; Mr. George H. Schildge Exec. Vice President Conti Rubber Products 4900 Hannover Place P.O. Box 1638 Fremont California 94538; Dear Mr. Schildge: This is in response to your October 29, 1975, letter concerning th applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars*, to moped tires.; Mopeds are classified under 49 CFR 571.3 as 'motor-driven cycles', subcategory of 'motorcycles', for the purposes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations. Therefore, tires designed for use on mopeds are tires designed for use on motorcycles and, as such, are subject to Standard No. 119. The NHTSA is considering an amendment of Standard No. 119 which would modify the requirements applicable to such tires, and expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject on the near future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4986OpenMr. Kevin J. Stoll Technical Advisor Russell Products, Inc. 21419 Protecta Drive Elkhart, IN 46516-9704; Mr. Kevin J. Stoll Technical Advisor Russell Products Inc. 21419 Protecta Drive Elkhart IN 46516-9704; "Dear Mr. Stoll: This responds to your letter of February 27, 1992, t Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions relating to center high-mounted stop lamps. Your questions are: '1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?' A center high-mounted stop lamp whose illumination is provided by LEDs is legal, provided that the light meets the photometric specifications for such lamp specified in Figure 10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and all other requirements. '2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake light on pickup trucks? b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer? c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?' With respect to (a), the center lamp may be installed at any point on the rear vertical centerline of pickup trucks. Because this requirement is not effective until September 1, 1993, we have no specific knowledge as to where the manufacturers of pickup trucks will locate the lamps. With respect to (b), NHTSA discussed the relationship of center high-mounted stoplamps to aftermarket slide-in campers or caps in the preamble to the final rule adopting the requirement. I enclose a copy of the rule (56 FR 16015) with our discussion highlighted on pages l6017 and 16018. After reading this material, if you have further questions regarding the effect on truck cap manufacturers and dealers, we shall be pleased to answer them. With respect to (c), we assume that the situation you envision is that a truck cap has been manufactured with a center stop lamp and the dealer is installing the cap on a pickup truck. If the cap is being permanently installed, the dealer may wire the cap's lamp directly to the existing center lamp light harness, as the cap lamp is intended as a surrogate for the original lamp. If the cap is removable, the dealer may also wire in the manner you discuss, provided that when the cap is removed (and the cap lamp disconnected) the original lamp will perform in conformance with Standard No. 108. The specific connections to be made should be done in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations. '3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck. b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationery. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved?' The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs. We can advise you as to whether designs appear to conform or not to conform with the applicable laws of our agency. Conformance with Standard No. 108 is determined with respect to the vehicle in its normal operating state. With respect to your question, this would be with the pickup cap window in its closed position. Thus, your design does not raise a question of conformance with Standard No. 108. '4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated rulings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings?' We do not maintain a mailing list of any sort. However, 'rulings' are not 'passed' at 'committee meetings' but are published in the Federal Register, initially as proposed rules affording a minimum of 45 days in which to comment. After evaluation of comments, a final rule may be published, with an effective date no earlier than 30 days after issuance. We believe it likely that any future proposals and amendments would be publicized, and that you would be likely to hear of them. There are no current plans to amend these requirements. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0496OpenMr. Ed Baringer, Manager, Penn-Ohio Chapter, 25 East Boardman Street, Youngstown, OH 44503; Mr. Ed Baringer Manager Penn-Ohio Chapter 25 East Boardman Street Youngstown OH 44503; Dear Mr. Baringer: In your letter of November 23, 1971, you asked how your members coul make sure that the seat belts they install in their trucks conform to the applicable motor vehicle safety standards. As far as the belts themselves are concerned, each belt made after the seat belt standard (No. 209) became effective in 1967 is required to (sic) marked with the year of manufacture. So long as the belt bears a date after 1967, it will have had to conform to the seat belt standard and your members should use the date as a guide in purchasing belts.; The provision of anchorages for the belts is a somewhat more comple problem. A new truck - manufactured after July 1, 1971 - is required to have anchorages for lap belts at all seating positions (and, in some cases, anchorages for shoulder belts). Although older trucks were sometimes provided with anchorages, many were not, and for these you will have to follow the location and instructions of Standard No. 210 in order to comply with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Although the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations do not establish strength requirements for anchorages, their strength should be of concern to you and in this area you may have to rely on the manufacturer, rather than the dealer, for advice on reinforcement of the vehicle structure.; Our legal staff is centralized in Washington and there are no fiel representatives of the agency who could assist you in matters relating to the standards. As much as we would like to send someone to address your group, the workload of the upcoming months prevents such a trip. However, we have found that many questions can be satisfactorily answered by letter. If your group could assemble a detailed list of questions, we will try to answer them as fully as possible.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.