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: aiam1406OpenMr. Elmer Rattner, Rebcor, Inc., P.O. Box 156, 3300 Dixie Highway, Fairfield, OH 45014; Mr. Elmer Rattner Rebcor Inc. P.O. Box 156 3300 Dixie Highway Fairfield OH 45014; Dear Mr. Rattner: This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1974, and subsequen telephone conversation with Mr. Feldman of this office asking whether the motorcycle helmets you manufacture may be labeled with the DOT symbol before the March 1, 1974, effective date of Standard 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; The NHTSA's position is that it would be 'false and misleading,' withi the meaning of the statute, for a DOT symbol to appear without qualification on helmets manufactured before the effective date of the standard. We do, however, consider it permissible to have a DOT symbol on the helmet if it is covered by a label, not easily removable, that states in letters at least one-quarter of an inch high:; >>>NO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD APPLIES TO THIS HELMET.<<< Further, since the requirements of the standard only apply to helmet that fit headform size C, manufactured on or after March 1, 1974, and will not apply to helmets that do not fit headform size C until extended to those sizes by a future amendment to the standard, the DOT symbol required for helmets that fit headform size C should not appear on any other helmets until the standard is made effective for those other sizes.; You also asked whether a manufacturer would be allowed to label helmet with a statement to the effect that, although no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a helmet of that size, it meets all Federal performance requirements for helmets of other sizes. We would have no objection to such a statement, provided the manufacturer ensures that it is true.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4604OpenMrs. Blanche Kozak 49 Sorrento Avenue Methuen, MA 01844; Mrs. Blanche Kozak 49 Sorrento Avenue Methuen MA 01844; "Dear Mrs. Kozak: Thank you for your letter concerning the applicabl classification and regulation of a three-wheeled vehicle manufactured by Cushman. I was saddened to learn that your husband died while operating such a vehicle at his job. Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information about this agency's laws and regulations. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new 'motor vehicles' and new items of 'motor vehicle equipment.' The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. According to your letters, there are two different models of the three-wheeled Cushman vehicle. One of these models is intended solely for off-road use. This model would not be a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the Safety Act, so NHTSA has no authority to regulate this model. The other model is intended for use on the public roads. According to your letter, your husband was operating the on-road model at his job. The on-road model plainly appears to be a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of the Safety Act. Cushman and every other manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. Both eighteen-wheel tractor trailers and motor scooters are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act, but the safety standards specify different requirements for those two types of vehicles. To determine the applicable requirements in the safety standards, one must determine into which of several vehicle classes the vehicle in question will fall. As our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking explained in his July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio, the on-road model of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle would appear to be classified as a 'motorcycle' for the purposes of our safety standards. NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act prohbits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The Safety Act also required Cushman to certify that each of its on road three-wheeled vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1403. Additionally, the Safety Act requires Cushman to recall and repair those vehicles if either Cushman or this agency determine that the vehicles contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419. It is the individual State, Massachusetts in this case, that has authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles in that State. I would now like to respond to the particular statements and concerns expressed in your letters. Statement One: You said: 'I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on the Public Highways and the person required to operate should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit.' (emphasis added) Response: As explained above, NHTSA cannot regulate the operation or use of these vehicles. That is a question that is entirely within the authority of the State of Massachusetts. You may wish to express to the appropriate persons in the State of Massachusetts your belief that the State ought to regulate the operation and use of these vehicles. Statement Two: You then noted that 'similar units are presently being used in the Commonwealth without a seat belt despite the fact that the Registry of Motor Vehicles considers them to be motor vehicles and not motorcycles.' Response: This statement suggests that you may have some uncertainties about the relationship of the vehicles called 'motorcycles' to the larger vehicle group called 'motor vehicles.' As explained above, for the purposes of Federal law, 'motorcycle' is a subset within the broad category of 'motor vehicles.' Other subsets of 'motor vehicles' include 'passenger car,' 'truck,' and 'bus.' Thus, for Federal purposes, all motorcycles are motor vehicles. Our July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio indicated that the on-road version of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle is a motor vehicle that would appear to be classified as a 'motorcycle.' Our safety standard that requires most motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts or other types of occupant crash protection is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). However, this standard does not apply to vehicles classified as motorcycles. Accordingly, none of our safety standards require Cushman to install safety belts on these vehicles. Statement Three: You noted that this vehicle 'does not have a solid door, only a canvas one.' Response: Our safety standard that specifies requirements for side doors on vehicles is Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). Standard No. 214 currently applies only to passenger cars. Since the vehicle in question is a 'motorcycle,' our safety standards do not require the manufacturer to provide doors on it. Statement Four: You suggested that the hospital and its employees 'were possibly subjected to a fraudulent act,' because the vehicle did not indicate a helmet is required when operating the Cushman vehicle. Response: You are correct in assuming that the State of Massachusetts has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders. If you are interested in learning more details about that law, you may wish to contact the appropriate persons in the Massachusetts state government. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0647OpenMr. Vincent G. Grey, Engineering Manager, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 1413 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Vincent G. Grey Engineering Manager Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1413 K Street N.W. Washington DC 20005; Dear Mr. Grey: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1972, forwarding to us draft of a TTMA Recommended Practice concerning GAWR and GVWR that you have developed as a guide for the truck trailer industry. You ask whether the draft is consistent with the applicable regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568).; The draft which you submitted is consistent with the regulation although it is much more specific than the regulations and represents just one method of achieving compliance. We appreciate your efforts in making the substance of the regulations available to this large segment of the industry.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3968OpenThe Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr., SD-185, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510, Attn: Mike Manuel; The Honorable Donald W. Riegle Jr. SD-185 United States Senate Washington DC 20510 Attn: Mike Manuel; Dear Senator Riegle: This letter is in further response to your inquiry concerning schoo bus seating issues raised by your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr. I regret the delay in our response.; Mr. Furr is interested in amending our safety standards to limit th number of passengers that a school bus may carry. He suggests reducing the passenger capacity of a standard 72- passenger school bus by the use of different seat configurations.; I would like to begin by explaining that our agency has two sets o regulations, issued under different acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381-1426), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. One of those standards is Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; Your constituent is correct that our safety standards do not limit th overall passenger capacity of a school bus. This is because the agency is not aware of any safety problem associated with the way manufacturers rate the capacity of their buses. We believe that manufacturers should be able to design their school buses to carry any number of passengers, provided that the appropriate occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 222 are met.; Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 222 states that: >>>The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat i expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.; The number of seating positions in a bench seat, expressed by 'W,' i calculated to determine the amount of force school bus seats must withstand in order to provide adequate crash protection for passengers. School bus seats must comply with the standard's requirements for forward and rearward performance by withstanding specified amounts of applied energy. The amount of energy applied to a particular bench seat is dependent on the number of seating positions. As that number increases, the amount of force the seat must withstand likewise increases.; In accordance with S4.1, a 39-inch bench seat is assumed to have designated seating positions. We recognize that such seats may be occupied by fewer persons, but that calculation helps to assure that the seat provides adequate protection when occupied by the maximum number. School buses with 24 39-inch bench seats are therefore assumed to carry 72 passengers. The school bus manufacturer must ensure that each bench seat meets the forward and rearward performance requirements, and all other applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, based on the calculations of seating positions and the required force applications.; Mr. Furr suggests alternative seating configurations for school buses He suggests that bench seats on a school bus, currently designated by a manufacturer to carry 72 passengers, should be designed with rows of 47-inch and 31-inch bench seats. Mr. Furr believed that 47-inch bench seat and a 31-inch bench seat could carry 3 and 2 passengers, respectively, for a total passengers capacity of 60 for the school bus. He suggests a change in the regulation to reflect this design change.; NHTSA is not aware of any data indicating that there is a safet problem associated with the seating capacity of school buses to justify a rulemaking action amending Standard No. 222. From our experience with Standard No. 222, some school districts appear to have concerns that actions reducing seating capacity in their vehicles might result in the need to purchase additional buses at substantial costs. Since we are not aware of any information indicating that a safety need exists to regulate the capacity of a school bus, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend Standard No. 222 in the manner suggested by Mr. Furr. Further, no amendment is necessary to permit local school districts to order seat configurations such as those suggested by Mr. Furr. The districts may do so now as long as manufacturers can ensure that their school buses meet all the applicable performance requirements of our safety standards.; The second set of regulations administered by NHTSA was issued unde the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401-408). Those regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, apply to state highway safety programs and cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), *Pupil Transportation Safety*, contains guidelines for the identification, maintenance, and operation of school vehicles. HSPS 17 does not set a limit on the seating capacity of school buses. It does, however, recommend that school districts design their bus routes to utilize fully the capacity of the bus, while avoiding standees. You may wish to consult with the State of Michigan to determine to what extent that state has adopted the provisions of HSPS 17.; Again, my apologies for the delay in responding. I hope thi information is helpful in responding to your constituent. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1955OpenMr. Mack Emmons, Emmons Brothers, P.O. Box 186, Meridian, MS, 39301; Mr. Mack Emmons Emmons Brothers P.O. Box 186 Meridian MS 39301; Dear Mr. Emmons: This is in response to your letter of May 1, 1975, concerning Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability, and in amplification of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.; As Mr. Schwartz advised you, Standard No. 302 applies to passenge cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Thus, the standard would apply to mattresses used in trucks. Further, it has been proposed to extend Standard No. 302 to campers and trailers other than those sold exclusively for the transportation of cargo (copy enclosed). Consequently, as you requested, I have enclosed a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, a recent amendment to that standard, and a proposed amendment which may also be of interest to you.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5445OpenMr. Gerald J. Gannon General Motors Corporation Legal Staff N Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. Gerald J. Gannon General Motors Corporation Legal Staff N Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Gannon: This responds to your letter asking whether NHTS intended, in a recent final rule, 'to require that vehicles with an automatic transmission with a 'park' provision must prevent steering after removal of the key in order to have an ignition key-operated transmission shift override device?' You stated that the final rule might be interpreted to produce that result, but argued, based on the preamble, that a more limited result was intended. You suggested that a clarifying amendment would be appropriate. We apologize for the delay in our response. After reviewing your letter, we have concluded that the issue you raise should be addressed in rulemaking. We anticipate that a notice addressing this issue will be issued shortly. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2380OpenMr. Tokio Iinuma, Staff, Safety, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632; Mr. Tokio Iinuma Staff Safety Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, question whether Standar No. 124, *Accelerator Control Devices*, requires that the throttle return to the 'idle position' within specified time limits in the case where an 'automatic speed control device' is in operation and a failure occurs in it.; The requirements of S5.1 and S5.2 of the Standard require a return o the throttle to the idle position when either one source of throttle 'return energy' or a component of the accelerator control system fails or is disconnected. In the case you describe, failure does not occur as outlines in S5.1 and S5.2. Therefore, this failure is not regulated by the standard. This is the case, because the NHTSA does not consider throttle-setting devices to be a component that 'regulate[s] engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return[s] the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force' as defined in S4.1. As set out in the definition of 'idle position', the agency considers the effect of a throttle-setting device to be a separate condition that affects the setting of the accelerator control system.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0217OpenMr. Georges Siwac, Sofica, Division De La Societe Anonyme Francaise Du Ferodo, 24 Rue Des Pavillons, 92 - Puteaux (France); Mr. Georges Siwac Sofica Division De La Societe Anonyme Francaise Du Ferodo 24 Rue Des Pavillons 92 - Puteaux (France); Dear Mr. Siwac: I regret our delay in responding to your letter of December 2, 1969 which evidently became lost after it reached us.; In your letter you ask three questions. The questions, and our answer to them, are as follows:; >>>1. If a European concern manufactures seat belts for installation i vehicles imported into the United States, is the vehicle manufacturer or the seat belt manufacturer responsible for compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 with respect to those seat belts? It is our view that both manufacturers are responsible for compliance with the standard. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale in the United States of a nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. A seat belt manufactured for installation on a motor vehicle to be sold in the United States is itself manufactured for sale in the United States. The manufacturer of the motor vehicle in which the nonconforming seat belt is installed would be in violation of section 108(a) because Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires certain motor vehicles to be equipped with seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard No. 209.; 2. Is a foreign manufacturer of seat belts which will be imported int the United States required to test the belts at approved facilities in the United States to demonstrate that they conform to Standard No. 209? The answer is no. There is no requirement in the law or the standard that seat belts must be subjected to approved tests before they can be imported and sold. The manufacturer must certify that the belts conform to the standard. In order to do so, a manufacturer would ordinarily make tests of his products. This is particularly the case because compliance with some of the standard's requirements can be ascertained only by actual tests of seat belts. However, there is no requirement that any particular test be made at any specific test facility.; 3. Must a European seat belt manufacturer designate an agent fo service of administrative process under section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if he is merely supplying the belts for installation as original equipment in motor vehicles to be imported into the United States. It is our view that a foreign manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment who knows or has reason to know that his products will be imported into the United States, whether as original equipment on motor vehicles or otherwise, is obligated under section 110(e) to designate an agent for service of process in accordance with that section. Section 110(e) is not limited in its scope to manufacturers who actually import their products, it also applies to manufacturers who are 'offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States'. The quoted language seems broad enough to cover suppliers of motor vehicle equipment who know or should know that the vehicles in which their products are installed will be imported for sale into the United States.<<<; Again, let me express my apologies for the delay in responding to you inquiry. If you have any further questions about your obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Very truly yours, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam5015OpenHerr Spingler Robert Bosch GmbH Geschaftsbereich K2 Entwicklung Lichttechnik Systeme Postfach 13 42 D-4710 Reutlingen Germany; Herr Spingler Robert Bosch GmbH Geschaftsbereich K2 Entwicklung Lichttechnik Systeme Postfach 13 42 D-4710 Reutlingen Germany; Dear Herr Spingler: This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992, t Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for a 'quick answer' to your question regarding the acceptability of a new headlamp design. Please be advised that my Office is the one to which questions of interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 should be addressed, and that correspondence addressed to the Chief Counsel allows us to respond more quickly to the concerns of the writer. We understand that you discussed the headlamp with Mr. Van Iderstine on his recent trip to Europe, and that it will be used in a replaceable bulb headlighting system that is governed by S7.5 of Standard No. 108. Your proposed headlamp incorporates a lower beam provided by an ellipsoid and an upper beam provided by a parabola. The drawing you enclosed shows the lower beam source above the upper beam source. When the upper beam is on, both bulbs will be activated simultaneously. Where, as in your design, each headlamp contains two light sources, S7.5(d)(2)(i)(A) and S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A) specify that the lower beam shall be provided by the outboard or uppermost light source. S7.5(d)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) and S7.5(e)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) specify that the upper beam shall be produced by the lowermost, or both, light sources. The beams in your headlamp are provided in this manner, and, therefore, are in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2800OpenMr. Philip P. Friedlander, Jr., National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc., 1343 L. Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Philip P. Friedlander Jr. National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association Inc. 1343 L. Street N.W. Washington DC 20005; Dear Mr. Friedlander: This responds to your February 23, 1978, letter asking whether th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation concerning the registration of passenger car tires can be applied to the registration of truck tires. In that interpretation, the NHTSA stated that it was permissible for a tire dealer to allow the tire purchaser to fill out the tire registration form and hand it back to the dealer.; The NHTSA's interpretation is applicable to both truck and passenge car tires. A truck tire dealer may permit a purchaser to fill out the required information rather than completing the registration form himself. However, this all must occur at the point of sale of the tire. The registration forms for both passenger car tires and truck tires are not permitted to be taken home or shipped with the tires to be completed by the purchaser and subsequently returned or mailed to the dealer. This would impair the benefit of mandatory tire registration and make it a voluntary program. This is not the intent of the regulation, and the NHTSA would not consider such a registration program to be in compliance with the tire registration regulation.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.