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: aiam1928OpenMr. Harold D. Jones, Bock & Jones, 435 Main Street, New Madrid, MO 63869; Mr. Harold D. Jones Bock & Jones 435 Main Street New Madrid MO 63869; Dear Mr. Jones: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1975, inquiring about th existence of regulations governing the manufacture, design, and on-the-road operation of trailers used to transport fertilizer while hitched to a pickup truck.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has th responsibility of promulgating safety standards that set minimum performance requirements for vehicles manufactured and/or sold in the United States. There are five motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trailers. These standards relate to trailer lighting, tires, and braking systems (Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses* (49 CFR Part 571.106), Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR Part 571.108), Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids* (49 CFR Part 571.116), Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR Part 571.119), Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems* (49 CFR Part 571.121)).; There is no safety standard that applies to the towing of a trailer The use of a safety chain to guard against release of the trailer may, however, be mandated by state law.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3915OpenMr. Carl. R. Ball, Chief of Police, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, 4100 South Kedzie Avenue, Chicago, IL 60632; Mr. Carl. R. Ball Chief of Police The Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company 4100 South Kedzie Avenue Chicago IL 60632; Dear Mr. Ball: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1985, asking whethe Safety Standards Nos. 212 and 219 prohibit the mounting of police spotlights on the door post of a vehicle. None of our standards prohibit such a mounting, however, the mounting must be done in a manner that the vehicle still complies with our safety standards. The following discussion more fully explains the effect of the agency's standards on spotlight mounting.; If the spotlight is mounted on a new vehicle before its first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person installing the spotlight would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since the A pillar of the vehicle would have to be altered to install the spotlight, the installation could affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 212, *Windshield Retention*, as well as Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*. If the spotlight is mounted away from the windshield, it does not appear that the installation would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard 219, *Windshield Zone Intrusion*.; If the alteration is made after a vehicle's first purchase, the section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair shop may knowingly render inoperative an element of design installed in compliance with our safety standards. Thus, if any of those persons install a spotlight they must ensure that they have not rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance with our standards.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners However, the agency urges owners that alter their vehicles not to defeat safety equipment installed in the vehicle.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0790OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letters of July 5 and July 18, 1972. In you letter of July 5, you ask whether manufacturers of school buses may delete any reference to seating capacity in establishing the gross vehicle weight rating in complying with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).; The definition of gross vehicle weight rating, for school buses requires the value used to include 120 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. 'Designated seating capacity' is defined to mean 'the number of designated seating positions provided,' while 'designated seating position' means 'any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats' (49 CFR 571.3). While the definition refers to the manufacturer's intent as the determinant of the number of designated seating positions, the actual test, as in other legal determinations of 'intent,' is how that intent is objectively manifested. Because it is obvious that school buses, due to their anticipated use, must have positions where children will sit while riding, a school bus manufacturer could not successfully argue that his vehicles do not have designated seating positions. Accordingly, his failure to include the designated seating capacity in his computation of GVWR would be a violation of the Certification regulations and of section 108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(3)). Violations of that section are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $400,000, and other sanctions (sections 109 & 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).; Your letter of July 18 asks whether a vehicle will be in complianc with the Certification regulations if the axle load exceeds the front or rear GAWR, but the total load does not exceed the GVWR. Because the regulations do not specify minimum criteria for GAWR, a vehicle whose actual weight on an axle system exceeds the stated value will not fail to conform to the Certification requirements. It may, however, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, depending on the actual circumstances involved, and if so, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying owners pursuant to section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402).; We will consider the possibility of establishing minimum requirement for GAWR (as we have for GVWR), in light of the facts you have presented.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5068OpenMs. Julia Wall Head of School The Trinity School of Texas 906 Padon Street Longview, Texas 75601; Ms. Julia Wall Head of School The Trinity School of Texas 906 Padon Street Longview Texas 75601; "Dear Ms. Wall: This responds to your letter to the Department o Transportation seeking a copy of the federal law regulating student transportation in general, and as it specifically relates to multiple passenger vans. I assume that your use of the term multiple passenger vans refers to vans with seats to the rear of the driver. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. Under NHTSA's regulations, passenger vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes passenger vans which carry ten persons or less, passenger vans which carry more than ten persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a 'school bus' is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. A copy of Guideline 17 is enclosed. In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children, however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Texas law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards. I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1882OpenMr. James L. Srch, Chief Engineer, Hendrickson Manufacturing Company, 8001 West Forty-Seventh Street, Lyons, IL 60534; Mr. James L. Srch Chief Engineer Hendrickson Manufacturing Company 8001 West Forty-Seventh Street Lyons IL 60534; Dear Mr. Srch: I am writing in response to your letter of March 25, 1975, in which yo request advice as to whether you should establish gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle weight ratings based on the 55 mph national speed limit or on the maximum attainable speed of the vehicle.; The Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) and the Gross Vehicle Weight Ratin (GVWR) are defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as determinations made by the manufacturer. (49 CFR 3571.3). As a general matter NHTSA finds that the manufacturer is most familiar with the complexities of this product and is most qualified to assign these values.; Recently NHTSA has found it necessary to specify that GAWR's and GVWR' be calculated on the basis of highway speeds and not qualified by reduced speed ratings, our reasons for this action are contained in the enclosed letter. For purposes of GAWR-GVWR calculations, NHTSA will henceforth consider 'highway speed' to be the 60 mph value used by the United States Tire and Rim Association in assigning unqualified ratings to their tires.; Therefore, your trucks and buses which are capable of speeds of 60 mp or more should be assigned ratings which reflect vehicle capabilities at 60 mph.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam2257OpenHoward A. Heffron, Esq., 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC, 20006; Howard A. Heffron Esq. 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington DC 20006; >>> Re: Yankee Metal Products Corporation<<< Dear Mr. Heffron: This is in reply to the petition of March 16, 1976, by your clien Yankee Metal Products Corporation ('Yankee' herein) for an interpretation of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Yankee seeks an interpretation 'that the use of strobe type signal warning lamps on school buses is permissible provided that such lamps meet the specific performance requirements in S4.1.4 which incorporates SAE Standard J887.'; Yankee has submitted a test report by Electrical Testing Laboratories Inc. indicating conformance to SAE Standard J887 including its photometric requirements. Yankee has also submitted an opinion by a professional engineer that 'the Yankee strobe lights tested by ETL meet the photometric requirements of SAE J887.'; As you know, this agency does not 'approve' specific lighting device prior to their introduction into interstate commerce, and all that is legally required is that the manufacturer certify that its product meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The ETL report and professional opinion indicate that the design of the Yankee system complies with SAE J887, and thus they provide a basis upon which Yankee could certify that its system meets Standard No. 108. Therefore the use of its strobe type signal warning lamps appears to be permissible under Standard No. 108.; This means that the interpretation provided Mr. John J. Giesguth o December 9, 1975, does not apply to any strobe light system where an equivalency of conforming performance can be demonstrated, as Yankee appears to have done.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5592OpenMr. D. L. O'Connor Manager Government & Customer Compliance The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron, OH 44316-0001; Mr. D. L. O'Connor Manager Government & Customer Compliance The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron OH 44316-0001; "Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your telephone conversation wit Walter Myers of my staff on July 12, 1995, followed up by your letter of July 13, 1995. You stated that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Colombia, South America, in that Colombia wants verification that Goodyear complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) when placing the DOT symbol on tires. You believe that Colombia will permit importation of Goodyear tires if NHTSA recognizes that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and that Goodyear's placing the DOT symbol on its tires is accepted as valid certification of compliance by the U.S. government. As Mr. Myers stated in your telephone conversation, other U.S. tire manufacturers and exporters have had similar difficulties with Central and South American countries. All those countries regard the FMVSSs as acceptable assurances of tire safety, but they do not seem to understand or are skeptical of our system of manufacturer self-certification. They want assurances from a responsible U.S. government agency that manufacturer self-certifications are accepted as valid by the U.S. government. Enclosed is a statement similar to those that we have provided other manufacturers and exporters. Since the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment, this statement is as far as we can go in getting the Federal government involved in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility. I hope the enclosed statement will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4229OpenMr. Scott Muirhead, Cal-Formed Plastics Co., 2050 E. 48th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90058; Mr. Scott Muirhead Cal-Formed Plastics Co. 2050 E. 48th Street Los Angeles CA 90058; Dear Mr. Muirhead: Thank you for your letter of August 2, 1986 to William Smith of thi agency, requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering as an item of original and aftermarket equipment. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described the product as a cross-bed seat for use in pickup trucks. The seat would be made of plastic and supported by a fabricated metal frame and be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing the rear. According to your description, the seat would have safety belts. The following discussion explains the application of our regulations to your potential product.; Since your potential product would be used as a seating position in motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the seat would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Standard No. 208, *Crash Protection*, Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.; If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to b installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standard Nos. 207, 208, and 210. However, the safety belts provided with the seat would have to comply with Standard No. 209.; Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, yo have a responsibility under section 15 *et seq*. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of an information sheet briefly describing those responsibilities is enclosed.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3016OpenMr. Jim Buck, National Service Manager, Yokohama Tire Corporation, 1530 Church Road, Montebello, CA 90640; Mr. Jim Buck National Service Manager Yokohama Tire Corporation 1530 Church Road Montebello CA 90640; Dear Mr. Buck: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1979, asking whethe Yokohama Tire Corporation's point-of- sale information leaflet conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not typically issue advance judgments concerning compliance with agency regulations, your proposed point-of-sale leaflet appears to meet the requirements of section 575.104(d)(1)(ii), assuming the listing at the bottom of the page contains each tire manufactured by Yokohama which is offered for sale at the location where the leaflet is distributed.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1181OpenMr. Philip H. Taft, Director, Tire Retreading Institute, 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Mr. Philip H. Taft Director Tire Retreading Institute 1343 L Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20005; Dear Mr. Taft: This is in reply to your letter of June 12, 1973, to Dr. Ed Wallace concerning Standard No. 117. Retreaded Pneumatic Tires. In your letter you suggest the following: that the standard be amended to prohibit the retreading of casings having 'damaged bead wire', that labels be allowed to be placed on any portion of the completed tire, and that the required labeling, 'bias/belted', be changed to allow the labeling of the word 'belted'.; With respect to your request to prohibit the retreading of casing having damaged bead wire, you state that the standard contains a 'loophole' because it prohibits the retreading of casings having 'exposed' bead, but it does not prohibit the retreading of casings having 'damaged' bead. We do not agree that this is a loophole, even though the standard has no explicit prohibition along those lines. The retreading of a casing that is damaged in any significant way would constitute the manufacturing of a defective tire, and the manufacturing retreader would be subject to the defect notification provisions (Section 113, 15 U.S.C. S1402) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. It is true that the explicit prohibitions of the standard offer clearer guidance than the defect provisions. The problem is that 'damage' is too vague a concept to define a tire condition -- in fact, it really is little more than a synonym for defective. We would give serious consideration, however, to a petition listing specific bead conditions which you believe should be the subject of new requirements in the standard. You should also note that damages caused by a defective tire, although it conforms to Standard No. 117, could still subject its manufacturer to civil liability in a private action (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)).; You further request that we allow the label (presumably the labe containing the items of consumer information required pursuant to S6.3.1) to be placed on the tread area of the tire. The NHTSA responds to this request in the notice responding to petitions for reconsideration published July 15, 1972. In that issuance we stated our position that affixing the label to the sidewall would more likely ensure that the label would be retained on the tire until its installation on a vehicle. We also indicated that the standard did not prohibit the placing of an additional label on the tread, which location, it was argued, facilitated storage.; Your final request is that the requirement that the words 'bias/belted be labeled onto that type of tires be amended to require only the word 'belted'. You indicate that most new tire manufacturers use the word 'belted'. You indicate that most new tire manufacturers use the word 'belted'. The NHTSA does not believe the word 'belted' to be sufficiently explicit, as radial tires are also 'belted' and the possibility of confusion is quite obvious. However, we are aware that Standard No. 109 does not require the labeling of the words 'bias/belted', and we plan to take steps with respect to Standard No. 117 so that no additional labeling will be required for a retreaded tire that retains its original casing labeling.; Sincerely, Robert. L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
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.