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: aiam2409OpenMr. Jack B. Schiff, 230 South Bemiston Avenue, Clayton, St. Louis, MO 63105; Mr. Jack B. Schiff 230 South Bemiston Avenue Clayton St. Louis MO 63105; Dear Mr. Schiff: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 8, 1976 concerning odometer statements issued by auction companies.; As we have indicated in previous letters to you, the statement 'n mileage guarantee' does not conform to section 580.6 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, the disclosure form. Therefore, any transferor of a motor vehicle who gives such a statement to his buyer is in violation of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. This applies equally to all transferors of ownership in motor vehicles, including individuals, dealers, distributors, and auction companies.; At first glance, the odometer disclosure statement issued by Floy Hauhe Auto Auction appears to be in violation of the Federal law because it clearly states that mileage is not guaranteed. However, upon closer inspection, such is not necessarily the case. You will note that their statement says 'warranty and mileage are not guaranteed to be good or correct on any car purchased *thru* this auction.' (Emphasis added) Additionally, it says that 'this sale is solely a transaction between the buying and selling dealer.' This language changes the facts significantly. The vehicle appears not to be as you state in your letter, purchased 'from' the auction company. It was instead purchased *through* the auction, and Floyd Hauhe was not, apparently, a tranferor (sic) of ownership in a motor vehicle as defined in Part 580.3 of title 49.; The responsibilities of an auctioneer with regard to the Federa odometer law vary depending upon the capacity in which he is operating. If the auctioneer is conducting business with both the buyer and seller present, the seller is required to disclose the mileage to the buyer at the time of sale and the auctioneer is essentially a by-stander as far as the Federal requirements are concerned. If the auctioneer buys a vehicle, then auctions it, he becomes the transferor and must disclose the mileage. In this case, the auctioneer would not be permitted to state that mileage was not guaranteed. If the auctioneer is acting as consignee for a seller who is not present and who may have delivered the vehicle from hundreds of miles away, he will have to obtain some assurance from the seller concerning the mileage on the vehicle at the time it left the owner's premises before a disclosure is made. As owner, the seller is ultimately responsible for the disclosure statement, but he may have to rely on his driver or the auctioneer to make out the statement at the auction.; It is unclear from the Floyd Hauhe Auto Auction statement as to th capacity in which they are operating. The language on the fact of the statement appears to indicate that they are not tranferors (sic) and thus are not responsible for issuing odometer statements. If however, they are requested to do so by absent sellers, their form is in violation of the Act because it does not provide the transferor's name, address or signature, and because it states that mileage is not guaranteed.; I hope that this information clarifies your questions. If you have an further questions, please do not hesitate to write.; Sincerely, John Womack Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4924OpenMr. D. E. Graham Engineering Manager Regulatory, Test & Service Engineering ASC, Incorporated One Sunroof Center Southgate, Michigan 48195; Mr. D. E. Graham Engineering Manager Regulatory Test & Service Engineering ASC Incorporated One Sunroof Center Southgate Michigan 48195; "Dear Mr. Graham: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power Windows (49 CFR 571.118). As you noted in your letter, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 118 in the April 16, 1991, edition of the Federal Register (56 FR 15290). You requested clarification of certain requirements in that final rule. The agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule amending Standard No. 118. The agency is currently reviewing the merits of each petition. The agency will issue a notice in the Federal Register granting and/or denying the petitions. In that notice, the agency will also address the concerns raised in your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 118. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues raised in your letter after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it. If you need more information on this subject, 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"; |
|
ID: aiam5636Open"M. Guy Dorleans International Regulatory Affairs ManagerValeo 34, rue Saint-Andr 93012 Bobigny Cedex France"; "M. Guy Dorleans International Regulatory Affairs ManagerValeo 34 rue Saint-Andr 93012 Bobigny Cedex France"; Dear M. Dorleans: This responds to your letter of September 29, 1995 with respect to the use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to fulfill the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108. You have enclosed a design for a lamp incorporating tail, stop, and rear turn signal functions, the illumination for which will be provided by red LEDs. At night, the LEDs will provide sufficient illumination to meet taillamp photometrics, with increased illumination when the brake pedal is applied, 'so that the sum of the photometrics of the stoplamp and the tail lamp is fulfilled.' When the turn signal is activated, 'all the diodes are energized at full intensity during the on-period of the turn signal and t he sum of the photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp and the tail lamp is then fulfilled . . . .' You ask for 'confirmation that this new lighting combination is correct.' We consider this lamp, as you have more fully described it in your letter, to be an acceptable design for meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0967OpenSatoshi Nishibori, Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., 650 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Satoshi Nishibori Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 650 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letter of January 8, 1973, asking us t confirm your understanding of paragraph S4.3.1 of Standard 210.; It is our opinion that each of the three drawings attached to you letter correctly indicates the 'nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware' for the respective belt anchorage systems.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3648OpenMr. Tom Dobbs, Oshkosh Trucks, 2307 Oregon Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901; Mr. Tom Dobbs Oshkosh Trucks 2307 Oregon Street Oshkosh Wisconsin 54901; Dear Mr. Dobbs: This responds to your recent telephone request asking whether Standar No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, would prohibit the use of a hand control that would allow the vehicle operator to apply only the rear brakes if the driver so chooses. You question whether this can be proper in light of the requirement that vehicles be equipped with brakes that act on all wheels. Although the standard requires brakes acting on all wheels, nothing in the standard prohibits the type of hand control that you mention.; For years, tractor-trailer combinations have been equipped with brake acting on all wheels. Some of these combinations also have been equipped with hand controls that allow the operator to activate only the trailer brakes. It has been argued that in some instances this control can be used to produce beneficial results in combination vehicles. While we can see no beneficial results that could possibly be gained by the use of hand controls in trucks, such a control would not be prohibited by the standard. The standard simply requires a service brake system acting on all wheels. The trucks that you mentioned would still have this system, and therefore, would continue to comply with the standard.; You should note that the agency does not encourage the use of such han controls, particularly on trucks. This type of control provides an opportunity for vehicle operators to lessen the effectiveness of their braking systems. Should an operator use the hand control instead of the full service brakes in a stop and create an accident, there could be the potential for tort liability for both the operator that purchased vehicles with such systems and for the manufacturer who installed them knowing that they could lead to the easy misuse of the braking system. We suggest that you contact your attorneys for further guidance in this area.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1675OpenMr. Bob Rauscher,Product Engineer,Galesburg Division,The Gates Rubber Company,P.O. Box 1196,Galesburg, Illinois 61401; Mr. Bob Rauscher Product Engineer Galesburg Division The Gates Rubber Company P.O. Box 1196 Galesburg Illinois 61401; Dear Mr. Rauscher:#This responds to your letter of October 9, 1974 requesting interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake hoses*, as applied to the labeling of air brake hose.#You have asked whether the designation 'AI-II' is permitted on hose for which the Type I and Type II dimensions listed in Table II are identical. Because such a designation is potentially misleading, it is not permitted. To comply with the standard, such hose should be labeled 'AI-AII'.#You have also asked whether hose labeled to indicate Type I or Type II dimensional characteristics may be used in brake hose assemblies which are constructed with permanently attached end fittings. S7.2 states:#>>>In the case of a hose intended for use in a reuseable assembly, 'AI' or 'AII' shall indicate Type I or Type II dimensional characteristics of the hose as described in Table III.<<<#Air brake hose which is designed for use with either permanent or reuseable end fittings falls within the meaning of 'hose intended for use in a reuseable assembly.' Therefore, such hose must be labeled with 'AI' or 'AII' (or 'AI-AII' as explained above.) Use of such hose with permanent end fittings is not prohibited under Standard No. 106-74.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4477OpenMr. Joseph F. Mikoll Vice President Transportation Equipment Corp. 712 North Van Buren Way Hopkins, MN 55343; Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll Vice President Transportation Equipment Corp. 712 North Van Buren Way Hopkins MN 55343; "Dear Mr. Mikoll: This responds to your recent request for confirmatio of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equipped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The new device you are considering producing is a 'safety bar.' This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are parallel to the seat and are covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the 'safety bar,' so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this 'safety bar' is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the latitudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the 'safety bar' and then sit down. The 'safety bar' will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash. The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat. The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety belt. S4.1.2 gives manufacturers the option of substituting a protection system 'that requires no action by vehicle occupants' for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions. Your proposed 'safety bar' requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants, i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the 'safety bar' could not be considered a protection system that 'requires no action by vehicle occupants,' for the purposes of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this 'safety bar' must also be equipped with safety belts. Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of 'safety bars' in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the 'safety bars' could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses. To install these 'safety bars' in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the 'safety bars' installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the 'safety bar' was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the 'safety bar' would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these 'safety bars' installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the 'safety bars' could not obstruct emergency exits located adjacent to seats. If you decide to manufacture these 'safety bars,' your company will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). As such, you will have several responsibilities, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3218OpenMr. R.W. Fink, Manager/Information Systems, Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., P.O. Box 653, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201; Mr. R.W. Fink Manager/Information Systems Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Inc. P.O. Box 653 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53201; Dear Mr. Fink: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1980, to Mr. Vinson o this office asking for an opinion whether S5.2.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 permits a passenger footboard of the nature you are considering for production.; S5.2.5 requires that 'footrests' be provided that, for passengers, fol rearward and upward when not in use. 'Footrest' is not defined but we view it as a term sufficiently broad to encompass both the round footpegs which predominate in the industry, as well as the footboard you propose to use. From the blueprint that you enclosed, the footboard when folded appears to be well within the permanent vehicle structure, and thus to meet the intent if not the letter of S5.2.5. We therefore see no legal reason why you may not introduce it into production.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1225OpenMs. Dianne Black, British Leyland Motors, Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, NJ 07605; Ms. Dianne Black British Leyland Motors Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia NJ 07605; Dear Ms. Black: This is in response to your letter of August 21, 1973, in which yo inquire whether British Leyland Motors Inc. may add to the consumer information leaflets for prospective purchasers, required by NHTSA regulations, the consumer information required by the Environmental Protection Agency.; As long as the information required by NHTSA is presented in conformit with 49 CFR 575, we have no objection to the inclusion within the same covers of additional information relative to EPA requirements. This would permit any format which includes EPA information without detracting from the clear and unconditional presentation of tabular information required under S 575.6(a) of Part 575.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4027OpenMr. Ezio Masina, Product Manager, Forjas Taurus, S.A., Av. do Forte, 511, 90 000 Porto Alegre - RS, Brazil; Mr. Ezio Masina Product Manager Forjas Taurus S.A. Av. do Forte 511 90 000 Porto Alegre - RS Brazil; Dear Mr. Masina: Thank you for your letter of September 3, 1985, to Mr. Franci Armstrong of this agency, concerning the 'DOT' label required on motorcycle helmets sold in the United States. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.; You explained that you have reviewed Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, and believe that your helmets comply with the requirements of this standard. You asked if you could place the 'DOT' label on your helmets sold outside of the United States.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has n jurisdiction over helmets sold outside the United States. Therefore, our regulations would not affect how you label your helmets. We, of course, urge you to use the label only on helmets which, in fact, do comply with our standard. In addition, the label should not indicate that NHTSA or the Department of Transportation has endorsed or approved your product. We also recommend that you check the labeling requirements of the countries in which you plan to sell your helmets.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.