Departamento de Transporte - USNHTSA 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: aiam1730OpenMs. Brenda Nolan, P.O. Box 172, Action, MA 01720; Ms. Brenda Nolan P.O. Box 172 Action MA 01720; Dear Ms. Nolan: A copy of your October 21, 1975, letter to Peterson Baby Products ha been forwarded to this agency by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for our consideration. In your letter, you indicated to the Peterson Company that you have experienced problems with their 'safety shell' child carrier as follows: A child can climb out of one model, vehicle seat belts do not readily attach to one model, while in both models, directions for adjustment of a tether strap appear inadequate, the child harness system does not adjust easily, and the padding materials are insufficiently durable.; Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Seating Systems*, regulates certai safety aspects of the type of child restraint system that seats a child for transportation in a motor vehicle. Peterson products subject to the requirements of the standard have been tested under NHTSA enforcement programs without failure.; Standard No. 213 does not include durability requirements for th padding or other material of the device. The standard does establish requirements for the retention of a simulated child's torso in the system when it is subject to frontal crash forces. This test, however, would not ensure that a child would be retained in the system if it attempted to release itself from the system. A 'child proof' system would make routine release by the parent extremely difficult.; As for belt webbing, the present standard only requires tha installation instructions be provided with the system, and that the webbing fit snugly those children for which the system is recommended. There are no requirements for the ease of seat belt hardware operation.; The NHTSA has proposed a more comprehensive child restraint standar that would regulate all child restraint systems, and would subject them to testing under dynamic loads that should result in upgraded performance of child restraint systems. I have forwarded your letter to the public docket on this rulemaking so that your views will be considered in the rulemaking process.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0988OpenSenator Herman E. Talmadge, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510; Senator Herman E. Talmadge Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Talmadge: This is in reply to your inquiry of January 16, 1973, on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Ski Bashinski. As Executive Director of the Georgia Independent Auto Dealers Association, Mr. Bashinski was concerned that the Federal Odometer Disclosure Requirements might become effective at a date earlier than that suggested in the notice of proposed rulemaking on the subject.; The regulations to which Mr. Bashinski refers were proposed by th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on December 2, 1973, (sic) pursuant to Title IV, Odometer Requirements, of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, P.L. 92-513. The effective date proposed was six months after issuance of a rule.; After reviewing the comments to its proposal, the NHTSA issued th Odometer Disclosure Requirements as a final rule on January 31, 1973. In the light of comments indicating a need for a prompt effectiveness, the rule will go into effect March 1, 1973. The other provisions of Title IV went into effect by operation of law on January 18, 1973, and require the assistance of the disclosure statement if they are to be fully effective.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4162OpenThe Honorable Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Kansas Senate, 430 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, KS 66048; The Honorable Edward F. Reilly Jr. Kansas Senate 430 Delaware Street Leavenworth KS 66048; Dear Mr. Reilly: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dennis D Furr of Lansing, Michigan.; As we understand his letter, Mr. Furr contacted you to express hi concern about a Michigan state law which permits loading school buses up to 110 percent of the number of persons for which the bus has a rated seating capacity. He believes that installation of safety belts in school buses would reduce the likelihood that excessive numbers of children would be carried on each school bus seat.; You asked for information on Mr. Furr's suggestion for school bu safety belts. I am pleased to explain the two sets of regulations we have for school buses, both of which are relevant to school bus seating accommodations. Before I begin, I would like to note that in July 1985, we responded to an inquiry on Mr. Furr's behalf from U.S. Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., asking about requirements limiting school bus passenger capacities. In our response, we explained how manufacturers currently determine the passenger capacities of their school buses and that we know of no safety problem related to their calculations. A copy of our letter is enclosed for your information.; As explained in our letter to Senator Riegle, the first set o regulations we have for school buses, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Some of Mr. Furr's concerns involve one of those safety standards, Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, which specifies requirements for safety belts in small school buses. Standard No. 222 currently does not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses (those with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds) because large school buses are already required to provide high levels of protection to passengers through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.; In his letter to you, Mr. Furr appears to be primarily concerned wit overloaded school buses and believes that safety belts would prevent schools from overcrowding school bus bench seats. We believe that this rationale for safety belts does not warrant a Federal requirement for belts on large school buses, since large school buses offer substantial protection to passengers and safety belts per se will not prevent users from overcrowding their buses. Thus, requiring safety belts in large school buses under Federal law would not assuredly lessen overcrowding of buses, and any possible improvement in seating accommodations would not be achieved.; On the other hand, we do not prevent States and local school district from ordering safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so. Thus, States may order school buses with safety belts if they believe this would reduce the likelihood that school buses would be overloaded. Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed in NHTSA's publication entitled, 'Safety Belts on School buses,' June 1985. I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.; Our second set of regulations for school buses, issued under th highway Safety Act, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Those recommendations are found in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed, which Mr. Furr refers to as 'Federal Standard 17.' This 'standard,' or guideline, recommends that States provide seating accommodations of minimum specified dimensions for each school bus occupant and that States coordinate seating plans to eliminate standees. To reiterate, however, Program Standard No. 17 is a guideline for the States and its adoption is determined by the States. We have no reason to believe that Michigan has not evaluated thoroughly its pupil transportation needs in determining whether to implement the standard's recommendations.; I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be o further assistance.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed |
|
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: aiam0284OpenMr. William R. Graham, Bus and Truck Supply Co., 315 Continental Avenue, Dallas, TX 75207; Mr. William R. Graham Bus and Truck Supply Co. 315 Continental Avenue Dallas TX 75207; Dear Mr. Graham: This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1970, requesting a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials,' as it applies to the forward-facing window above the windshield of a particular bus, a picture of which you enclosed.; Because the window in question is a forward-facing window, we canno conclude that it is an 'opening in the roof' under the standard. We apologize for the inconvenience caused by any implication to the contrary that you may have been given on your visit here.; Based upon the picture submitted, and your statement that the windo 'is not adjacent to passenger seating,' we conclude that this location is one that is not specifically designated by the standard. As such, the use of AS2 glazing, which you indicated you plan to use, or alternatively AS1, AS3, AS10, or AS11 glazing, would be appropriate.; If you have further questions, we will be happy to answer them for you. Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2313OpenMr. Charles N. Eblin, Service Director, City of Marion, 685 Delaware Avenue, Marion, OH 43302; Mr. Charles N. Eblin Service Director City of Marion 685 Delaware Avenue Marion OH 43302; Dear Mr. Eblin: This responds to your May 6, 1976, request for permission to remove th brake system from two trucks that were manufactured with brake systems conforming to the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; From the description of the problems you have encountered with th vehicles, I assume that you do not intend to remove the entire brake system, but only one or more antilock systems installed in satisfaction of the 'no lockup' requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of the antilock system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business. Your dealer's refusal to remove the devices is probably based on this prohibition.; A person that does not fall into these categories is not prohibite from disconnection of the systems. Other State or Federal requirements, such as those of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for operation in interstate commerce, may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that you not disconnect safety devices without consulting the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safety configuration of the vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2186OpenMr. David Warfield, Box 1207, Easton, Maryland 21601; Mr. David Warfield Box 1207 Easton Maryland 21601; Dear Mr. Warfield: This is in response to your January 21, 1976, request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, *Retreaded Pneumatic Tires*.; You asked whether a retreaded tire may be manufactured with a casin from which the original manufacturer's tire identification number (required by 49 CFR Part 574 and Standard No. 109) has been buffed off, provided the original DOT symbol remains. The answer to your question is yes. The only items of information that are required to be retained from the original casing are the following:; >>>(a) the symbol DOT, (b) the size of the tire, and (c) the actual number of plies or ply rating.<<< A retreaded tire must also, of course, be labeled with the DOT-R symbo and with the retreader's tire identification number, pursuant S6.1 of Standard No. 117 and 49 CFR Part 574.; Yours truly, 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.