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: nht70-1.16OpenDATE: 08/01/70 EST FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Transelex Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 5 discussing your "new type of warning beacon' for use on emergency vehicles. The photometric test action of SAE Recommended Practice J845,(Illegible Words) Emergency Warning Lamp refers to both "lamps flashed by rotation or oscillation" and lamps flashed by current interruption". The letter phrase appears to cover the Transelex lamp as you have described it, and we interpret J845 as applicable. Our interpretation would seem to answer your question on AAMVA approval. Current Federal lighting requirements do not cover warning lamps, and even if they did, no Department of Transportation approval would be required. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 it is the manufacturer of motor vehicles or equipment to which a standard applies who certifies compliance with that standard. Sincerely, |
|
ID: nht92-4.1OpenDATE: 09/17/92 FROM: TIM BOHN -- PORTEC, INC. TO: CHIEF COUNCILS OFFICE, NHTSA TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-10-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE (SIGNATURE BY JOHN WOMACK) TO TIM BOHN (A40; VSA 102(3) TEXT: We are manufacturer of construction equipment located in the Midwest. As a manufacturer, we are concerned with equipping brakes on the wheels of the portable equipment we manufacture. Much of the equipment we manufacture is transported by towing over public roadways and highways. Although this equipment is transported over public roads, it is usually done so only between job sites and occasionally from the factory. We need to know if there are any regulations, laws or standards that could be interpreted as applying to the use of brakes on this type of equipment. Any information or direction you could provide us on this matter would be greatly appreciated. |
|
ID: 19146.drnOpenMr. Lynn Degenhart Dear Mr. Degenhart: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether you, a Blue Bird school bus dealer, may sell to a school district, a new bus not certified to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) school bus standards when you know that the bus will be used to take students to athletic events and on field trips. The answer is no. The reason for our answer is as follows. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, and to apply those standards to all school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. NHTSA has determined that "related events" include athletic events and school-related field trips. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new "school bus" to sell or lease a vehicle that meets the Federal school bus safety standards. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she sells a vehicle for use as a school bus and the vehicle is not certified as such. As you note, the school district intends to use the buses to transport school children for school-related events. If you are selling a new bus, you must sell only a bus that meets NHTSA's school bus standards. You also asked about your legal obligations when selling a used bus to a school or school district. The federal Safety Act requirement to sell or lease complying school buses applies only to new vehicles. If a school wishes to buy or lease a used bus which carries more than 10 persons, NHTSA would not require the seller or lessor to sell or lease a school bus. However, NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children meet NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using buses that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability under State law in the event of a crash. Since any potential liability your dealership may incur arising out of a sale or lease of a used vehicle would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with an attorney and your insurance carrier for advice on this issue. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
|
ID: 23197rbm-2Open James T. Pitts, Esq. Dear Mr. Pitts: This letter responds to your recent correspondence where you ask the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for clarification of the provision in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 that excludes small volume manufacturers from the phase-in of the requirements for advanced air bags. (1) As noted in your letter, FMVSS No. 208 currently excludes from the phase-in vehicles manufactured by a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 vehicles worldwide annually. While not subject to the phase-in requirements, small volume manufacturers are required to meet the requirements for advanced air bags effective September 1, 2006. You queried whether a wholly-owned subsidiary of a manufacturer could qualify as a small volume manufacturer under a corporate arrangement that effectively treats the subsidiary as a totally separate corporate entity. Your letter indicated that the parent company does not manufacture vehicles for the U.S. market. You particularly emphasized the arms length relationship between the parent and the subsidiary, as well as the separate manufacturing plants, separate relationships with suppliers and sub-contractors, and the fact that the parent-subsidiary relationship would be the result of the acquisition of an existing small volume manufacturer. Based on a review of the proposed corporate structure, we believe that the subsidiary would probably qualify as a small volume manufacturer for purposes of the relevant provision of FMVSS No. 208, even though wholly owned by a much larger vehicle manufacturer. However, we believe that the determination of whether the subsidiary is a small volume manufacturer for FMVSS No. 208 is no longer pertinent. In our response to petitions for reconsideration of the advanced air bag final rule, published December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65376), we changed the provision so that vehicles that are manufactured by an original vehicle manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United States are not subject to the phase-in requirements. Again, we note that small manufacturers have always been required to meet the advanced air bag requirements after the phase-in ends on September 1, 2006. A complete explanation of the change is provided in our response to the petitions. I hope this adequately resolves your concerns. Should you have any additional questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202)366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:208
1 The advanced air bag requirements were published as a final rule on May 12, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 30680). |
2002 |
ID: nht81-1.25OpenDATE: 03/05/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Gillig Corp. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr. Roy O. Smith Manager of Body Design Gillig Corporation Box 3008 Hayward, California 94540 Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your letter of November 20, 1980, inquiring about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked for our confirmation that a foot-operated turn signal control on your new transit bus is not subject to the identification requirements of Section S5.2.1. The identification requirements of Section S5.2.1 of Safety Standard No. 101 are applicable to "hand operated" controls. Since the turn signal control on your new transit bus is foot operated, those requirements are not applicable. Since the standard does not include any other identification requirements for turn signal controls, your conclusion stated above is correct. While the identification requirements of Section S5.2.1 are not applicable to your transit bus, you may wish to identify the turn signal control in some manner in order to prevent confusion when persons unfamiliar with foot-operated turn signal controls operate your transit bus. The agency is currently conducting research on the standardization of the location of critical controls, including the turn signal control. We would appreciate receiving information as to why you are locating the turn signal control on the floor when the vast majority of other vehicles have the control mounted as a stalk on the steering column. We would also note that Standard No. 101's display requirements for turn signals are applicable to your transit bus if it has a GVWR of under 10,000 pounds. Also Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, includes other requirements related to turn signals. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel November 20, 1980 Mr. Frank Berndt CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Berndt: On our new transit bus, we use foot actuated push buttons to operate the turn signals. Section S5.2.1, (a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, requires that "Any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table I that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol". Since our turn signal control is foot operated, not hand operated, it is our opinion that this requirement does not apply to our arrangement. Your comments would be appreciated. Very truly yours, GILLIG CORPORATION Roy O. Smith Manager of Body Design ROS:1r |
|
ID: 1982-1.7OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 01/20/82 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: David Traxler TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is to follow-up your telephone call of October 29, 1981, asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to "hatchback" door latches. Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, includes requirements for side door latches. We have enclosed a copy of that standard for your convenience. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the rear latch of a hatchback. However, even in the absence of a safety standard, the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may be applicable. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. ENC. |
|
ID: nht95-6.4OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 8, 1995 FROM: Bryan Couch -- Systems Zone Leader, Motor Coach Industries TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/28/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BRYAN COUCH (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108) TEXT: Dear Chief Council: Please find enclosed preliminary drawing showing our proposed location for the front marker lamp and supplementary front marker lamp. We are requesting that you please critique this drawing and respond with your approval, or concerns. The lamp identified as the front marker lamp will meet all FMVSS photometry requirements, and in our opinion is placed as far forward as practicable on this vehicle. The lamp identified as supplementary will not meet the 45 degrees rearward photometry requirement due to the shape of the vehicle. Please accept our advance thank you for your input and we look forward to receiving your response. (Drawing Omitted.) |
|
ID: nht95-3.80OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 8, 1995 FROM: Bryan Couch -- Systems Zone Leader, Motor Coach Industries TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/28/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BRYAN COUCH (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108) TEXT: Dear Chief Council: Please find enclosed preliminary drawing showing our proposed location for the front marker lamp and supplementary front marker lamp. We are requesting that you please critique this drawing and respond with your approval, or concerns. The lamp identified as the front marker lamp will meet all FMVSS photometry requirements, and in our opinion is placed as far forward as practicable on this vehicle. The lamp identified as supplementary will not meet the 45 degrees rearward photometry r equirement due to the shape of the vehicle. Please accept our advance thank you for your input and we look forward to receiving your response. (Drawing Omitted.) |
|
ID: nht72-5.10OpenDATE: 04/11/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA TO: G. and W. Body Works TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your "Manufacturer Identification Registration Report" with which you submitted a sample of a certification label that you intend to use to fulfill your obligations under Part 567 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, soliciting our advice. The nomenclature on the label fulfills the requirements. However, there is some question as to whether the material would meet the permanency requirements of section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act). The subject is further addressed in the Preamble to the certification requirements that became effective on September 1, 1969, ". . . The intent of the requirement is that the label last for the life of the vehicle . . . ," (34 F. R. 7031) copy enclosed. You should assure yourself that the material used will meet those requirements. |
|
ID: nht91-1.29OpenDATE: January 24, 1991 FROM: Nancy J. Hunt -- Paralegal to John T. McDowell, Bankston & McDowell TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Nancy J. Hunt (A37; Std. 301) TEXT: I am contacting you for the purpose of confirming the official ruling as it relates to FMVSS 301-75 (Rear Impact, Fuel Integrity Test Protocol) with respect to whether the spare tire is required to be in its proper place inside a vehicle at the time of testing. We would appreciate a copy of any and all protocols, requirements, and regulations as well as any recommendations regarding the inclusion and/or exclusion of a spare tire during automobile testing. We would also welcome your comments or opinions regarding this matter. Should you have any questions concerning our request, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Thank you for your cooperation. |
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.