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: aiam2051OpenMr. Albert A. Dawes, Chief, Procurement Law Division, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, Department of the Army, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. Albert A. Dawes Chief Procurement Law Division U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command Department of the Army Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Dawes: This is in response to your letter of August 29, 1975, in which you as whether the exemption provided by 49 CFR S 571.7(c) applies to all commercial vehicles manufactured and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States.; All vehicles (including commercial vehicles) meeting the definition o 'motor vehicle' in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1392(3)) that are manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity to contractual specifications are exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under 49 CFR S 571.7(c).; We hope this information is of assistance. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4886OpenMr. Charles Stansell 5414 Robin Road Garland, TX 75043; Mr. Charles Stansell 5414 Robin Road Garland TX 75043; "Dear Mr. Stansell: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about the labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You posed two questions. First, you asked if it was true that 'the law does not prohibit anyone from removing a DOT sticker?' The DOT sticker to which you refer is the helmet manufacturer's certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the certification from the helmet. Federal law does not prohibit individual owners from removing the DOT certification from their own motorcycle helmets, but State law may do so. You will need to contact officials in the State of Texas to learn if there is such a prohibition in your State. Second, you asked if it was true that a 'large number' of motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 are not considered in violation of Standard No. 218 even though they do not have the DOT certification sticker. It is true that not all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were subject to Standard No. 218. Those helmets that could not fit on the test headform (typically the small and extra small helmets) were not subject to the standard, and were not labeled with a DOT certification. However, the total population of helmets that were too small to fit on the headform was only approximately 10 percent of all helmets. The remaining 90 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were subject to Standard No. 218 and were required to be certified by means of a DOT sticker. All motorcycles helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are required to be certified as complying with Standard No. 218. For your information, I have enclosed two of our interpretation letters that provide detailed responses to the issues raised in your letter. These two letters are a December 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Wayne Ivie of the Oregon State Department of Transportation and a December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Larry Hoppe. I have also enclosed a NHTSA information sheet on motorcycle helmets. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0596OpenMr. E. G. Allison, Purchasing Agent, Lempco Industries, Inc., Metals Division, S. Main Street, New Lexington, OH 43764; Mr. E. G. Allison Purchasing Agent Lempco Industries Inc. Metals Division S. Main Street New Lexington OH 43764; Dear Mr. Allison: This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1972, on the subject o an automobile dealer's obligations regarding seatbelts in new cars.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires seatbelts to b installed at all seating positions. Under the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which we administer, it is a violation of the law to sell a vehicle that does not conform to an applicable standard. A dealer may not, therefore, sell an automobile that does not have the required number of seatbelts.; Although the act does not prevent the purchaser of a vehicle fro removing the belts, after he has completed the purchase, we strongly advise him to leave the belts in and to wear them. A dealer who removes the belts after he has sold the vehicle does not violate the law, but he does his customer a disservice.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3569OpenMr. J. Mack Shively, Grebe, Gross, Jensen & Peek, P.C., 1530 S.W. Taylor Street, Portland, OR 97205; Mr. J. Mack Shively Grebe Gross Jensen & Peek P.C. 1530 S.W. Taylor Street Portland OR 97205; Dear Mr. Shively: This is in response to your letter of May 11, requesting our views a to the applicability of vehicle identification number requirements and certification label requirements to a semi-trailer to be manufactured by Cranston Diversified Industries. This trailer would have three interchangeable sections.; You are correct in your interpretation of the manner in which ou requirements would be applied to the trailers in question. Only one vehicle identification number and one certification label are required. Affixing the label to the left side of the front section would be consistent with our regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1554OpenMr. Rick Shue,Product Safety Engineer,Volvo of America Corporation,Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647; Mr. Rick Shue Product Safety Engineer Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh New Jersey 07647; Dear Mr. Shue:#This is in respond to your June 19, 1974,questio whether required hose labeling under Standard No. 106, *Brake hoses*, permits placing some required labeling on each of several hose sections which are joined together in one vacuum brake line to form the required label. You ask how a 2 3/8-inch section could otherwise be labeled.#It is not permitted under S9.1 to label a vacuum brake hose with only part of the required information, whether or not it appears with all other required labeling in the same brake line.#You state that 5 inches is required to place all labeling on vacuum hose. We do not understand why the legend could not be shortened to 2 3/8-inches or less. There is no width requirement for lettering and Notice 11 now permits labeling information to appear in any order on the hose to simplify cutting.#Please write again if we have misunderstood the problem you have posed.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3093OpenMr. Frank Pepe, Assistant Vice President, United States Testing Co., Inc., 1415 Park Avenue, Hoboken, NJ 07030; Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President United States Testing Co. Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken NJ 07030; Dear Mr. Pepe: This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirement applicable to automatic seat belts under Safety Standrd (sic) No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. Specifically, you ask for confirmation that all automatic belts must comply with the adjustment specifications of paragraph S7.1 of the standard.; Your understanding is correct. Automatic seat belts must meet th adjustment requirements of paragraph S7.1, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 incorporated by reference, whether or not they are required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 of the standard. Automatic belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other parts of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4756OpenMr. Brian Gill Senior Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 100 West Alondra Boulevard P. O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247-0805; Mr. Brian Gill Senior Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co. Inc. 100 West Alondra Boulevard P. O. Box 50 Gardena California 90247-0805; "Dear Mr. Gill: This responds to your request that this agenc determine that the new antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 Honda Acura NS-X car line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Acura NS-X vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. As you are aware, the Acura NS-X car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Honda showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on February 5, 1990, and appeared in the Federal Register on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4746). The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is 'likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541).' In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation, attracting attention to unauthorized entries, preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons, preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants, and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device. In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Honda plans improvements in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Acura NS-X in two ways: First, the new antitheft system would be armed by using the auto door lock system control to lock either door. Honda states that in the system that was the subject of the exemption from the theft prevention system, it was necessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. According to the attachment provided in your letter, this change would make it possible to arm the the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked. Second, the radio would now be included in the alarm system. Thus, the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal or the coupler is disconnected, or if the radio's wiring is cut. After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Honda to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2). If Honda does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Honda notify the agency of such decisions. It is my understanding that, in a May 16, 1990, telephone conversation between Brian Tinkler of Honda and Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Tinkler confirmed that Honda was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking /"; |
|
ID: aiam3139OpenMr. M. S. Keshav, Manager - Research & Development, Bajaj Auto Limited, Bombay Poona Road, Akurdi - Poona - 411 035, India; Mr. M. S. Keshav Manager - Research & Development Bajaj Auto Limited Bombay Poona Road Akurdi - Poona - 411 035 India; Dear Mr. Keshav: This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 1979, to Franci Armstrong asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. SAE Standard J588e August 1970 is the referenced standard for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 4.2 of J588e requires that as mounted on the vehicle 'The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam'. You mentioned that on some motorcycles sold in the United States this requirement is satisfied only with the handlebar in the straight ahead position but not when turned to the full lock position. You asked whether this complies with Standard No. 108.; Table IV specifies that the minimum edge to edge separation between th headlamp and turn signal lamp on motorcycles is 4 inches. Most manufacturers have interpreted this requirement to mean that the separation is permanent, and have supplied turn signals that are mounted stationary with the headlamp, and that turn with it so that the separation distance is maintained. Therefore, the configuration you describe would not comply with Standard No. 108 because Federal requirements for location and mounting of lighting equipment are intended to apply to a vehicle under all its operating conditions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1104OpenMr. Ralph H. Ullenberg, President, Milwaukee truck Center, Inc., 10521 West Layton Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53228; Mr. Ralph H. Ullenberg President Milwaukee truck Center Inc. 10521 West Layton Avenue Milwaukee WI 53228; Dear Mr. Ullenberg: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you as several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds, a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico, (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date, (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating, if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date, (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.; It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issu underlies all your questions, that is, whether a final- stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.; A truck that is equipped at the time of its manufacture with tire inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S. C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.; The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped withou tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case in within this exception.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4306OpenMs. Laurel Osborne, Regional Coordinator, National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses, P. O. Box 225, Galena, Alaska 99741; Ms. Laurel Osborne Regional Coordinator National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses P. O. Box 225 Galena Alaska 99741; Dear Ms. Osborne: This responds to your January 29, 1987 letter to Mr. Barry Felrice NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, asking about our agency's position on safety belt use in small school buses (i.e., school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less). Your letter has been referred to me for reply.; In your letter, you explain that you and the Alaska School Bus Safet Committee are interested in Alaska's implementation of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety.* You request clarification of NHTSA's position on safety belt use in small school buses because members of the committee believe that safety belts are provided on those buses only for the use of special education students. You also request information on safety belt education programs that schools could use to encourage the proper use of safety belts by student passengers in small school buses.; As you might know, NHTSA has two sets of regulations for school buses The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. One of these safety standards is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,* which requires the safety belts for passengers on small school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, includes Highway Safety Programs Standard No. 17 and relates to the use of school vehicles. Because requirements for the use of school buses are set by the states, Standard No. 17 sets forth recommendations to the states for the pupil transportation aspect of their highway safety programs. We encourage states to consider Standard No. 17's recommendations but do not insist on compliance with every aspect of the standard.; As you are aware, NHTSA does not believe that a Federal requirement fo safety belts on large school buses (GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) is necessary because large school buses are very safe due to their mass, seating configuration and 'compartmentalized' seating positions. However, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities. Of course, the belts on small school buses provide safety benefits only if they are properly used. We thus recommend they be used by all pupils whenever the children are transported. This recommendation is consistent with Program Standard No. 17, which states, 'Passengers in Type II school vehicles equipped with lap belts shall be required to wear them whenever the vehicle is in motion.' (IV.C.3.d(5).); With regard to your question about belt education programs, NHTSA an the National PTA have put together a 'Safety Belt A/V Resource Kit' and a 'Children's Training Kit' as part of our 1986 safety belt awareness campaign. The kit contains material geared toward increasing safety belt use by children in passenger cars, and might be helpful in promoting belt usage in small school buses. I am sending you the resource kits by separate cover.; Further, some states have developed their own safety belt eductio programs for school children. The person in your state who might be able to provide you with more information on the programs available in Alaska is:; << |
|
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.