United States Department of TransportationNHTSA 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: aiam0964OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: In our letter to you of December 7, 1972, regarding Standard 217, Bu Window Retention and Release, we incorrectly stated in the answer to question 5 that an amendment currently being prepared would clarify Figures 1 and 2 to indicate the location of the bus wall in relation to the seat. We do not feel such a clarification is necessary for the purposes of the standard. The intent of those figures is to establish a space envelope containing certain reach distances with respect to the seat, and the location of the wall is therefore not relevant.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2959OpenMr. Frank Tedesco, President, Lifetime Foam Products, Inc. 3001 Cullerton Drive, Franklin Park, IL 60131; Mr. Frank Tedesco President Lifetime Foam Products Inc. 3001 Cullerton Drive Franklin Park IL 60131; Dear Mr. Tedesco: This is in response to your letter of February 8, 1979, requestin confirmation of your understanding of an October 7, 1976, letter of interpretation by our office concerning Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*. You are correct in your assumption that the standard applies only to completed vehicles and not to vehicle seats as individual equipment.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4474OpenRusty Mitchell A-Z Bus Sales, Inc. P.O. Box 9389 5555 W. Mission Blvd. Ontario, CA 91762; Rusty Mitchell A-Z Bus Sales Inc. P.O. Box 9389 5555 W. Mission Blvd. Ontario CA 91762; "Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is a response to your letter of November 11 1987, in which you asked for information on the 'application of seat belts in school buses.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds) to afford passenger crash protection by means of 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include high seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) experience greater force levels in a crash, Standard 222 requires the added protection of safety belts at each passenger position in a small school bus. School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, our regulations do not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses. I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled 'Safety Belts in School Buses,' which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject. You also asked whether there is an order form listing available data for safety belts in school buses. This agency does not publish 'order forms' for any data. For further information on this subject, you may wish to contact individual school bus manufacturers to ask for data about safety belts in their buses. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1226OpenMr. C. J. Goode, British Leyland Uk Limited, Meteor Works, Lode Lane, Solihull, Warwickshire B92 8NW; Mr. C. J. Goode British Leyland Uk Limited Meteor Works Lode Lane Solihull Warwickshire B92 8NW; Dear Mr. Goode: In your letter of July 5, 1973, you express two concerns about th treatment of multipurpose passenger vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.; Your first concern is that the standards to be issued under the ac will apply to all passenger motor vehicles, and will include multipurpose passenger vehicles unless the agency expressly exempts them. As we stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking on the new bumper standard, we are proposing to exempt multipurpose passenger vehicles from the initial standard. The continuance of this exemption depends on a variety of considerations, and we would appreciate the benefit of your views on the subject.; Your second concern is that the definition of 'multipurpose passenge vehicle' in the safety standards (49 CFR 571.3(b)) differs from the definition of the same term in the Cost Savings Act. Although the definitions are fundamentally similar, the safety standards definition limits the MPV category to vehicles designed to carry 10 persons or less, while the Cost Savings Act definition includes somewhat larger vehicles, up to a capacity of 12 persons. We do not foresee any problems as a result of this difference, but if problems arise, it would be possible through rulemaking to restrict the applicability of a cost savings standard to MPV's having a capacity of 10 persons.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam4024OpenMr. Robert C. Blunt, Papy, Poole, Weissenborn & Papy, 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 502, Coral Gables, FL 33134; Mr. Robert C. Blunt Papy Poole Weissenborn & Papy 201 Alhambra Circle Suite 502 Coral Gables FL 33134; Dear Mr. Blunt: This responds to your two letters to former Chief Counsel Jeffre Miller in which you sought information concerning our Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).; In your first letter, you enclosed a copy of a newspaper article tha appeared in the Miami Herald. That article stated that a 'Federal study' rated projected mileage for 134 different radial tires, and ranked the 'best' and 'worst' tires. You asked for a copy of this study, along with the standards used by the agency to grade treadwear, traction, and temperature-resistance for tires. Your second letter indicates you subsequently received a copy of our UTQGS (49 CFR S575.104), which sets forth the procedures the tire manufacturers use to grade their tires. As discussed below, the 'Federal study' referenced in the newspaper article is merely information taken from tire manufacturers' UTQGS submissions to the agency.; As set forth in the UTQGS, this agency requires the tire manufacturer to assign grades to each of their tire designs. NHTSA then makes available to the public the grade assignments reported to it by the tire manufacturers. Hence, the tests to which the article referred were conducted entirely by the individual tire manufacturers, not by the Federal government.; Neither the tire manufacturers nor the agency made, or could make, an total tire mileage projections from the reported treadwear grades. If one were to project total mileage from the treadwear grade, one could say only that a certain tire might get x miles if driven over the same roads at the same speeds on the same vehicles with the same careful maintenance performed daily on those vehicles. A projection of a tire's treadlife which did not include all of these caveats would be misleading.; Finally, the agency does not categorize particular tires as the best o the worst based solely on the treadwear grades assigned by the manufacturers. Such an approach ignores the importance of the traction and temperature resistance grades, both of which have far greater significance from a safety standpoint than does the treadwear grade. Because of the many variables involved in selecting the most appropriate tire, this agency cannot state that any particular tire is the best for most drivers.; In your second letter, you stated that you had received a 198 publication entitled 'Tire Grading System Information,' and requested a copy of the 1983 and 1984 updates of that publication. The agency did not update that publication during those years. Instead, all interested consumers have been provided with a complete listing of all grades which have been reported to the agency, together with an explanatory sheet telling how to use those grades. I have enclosed a copy of those grades for your information.; For your information, NHTSA suspended treadwear grading requirement under the UTQGS, effective February 8, 1983. This action was announced after the agency found high levels of variability in treadwear test results and in the grade assignment practices of the various tire manufacturers. This variability resulted in a substantial likelihood that treadwear information being provided to the public under this program would be misleading, i.e., that the assigned treadwear grades could, in many instances, incorrectly rank the actual treadwear performance of different tires.; On April 24, 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Distric of Columbia Circuit vacated the agency's suspension of the treadwear grading requirements in *Public Citizen v. Steed*, 733 F.2d 93. Accordingly, the agency published a final rule reimplementing the treadwear grading requirements on December 19, 1984 (49 FR 49293, copy enclosed). Hence, if you were seeking treadwear grades for 1983 and 1984, none were assigned during those years.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0067OpenMr. John F. Dando, Chief Engineer, FWD Corporation, Clintonville, WS 54929; Mr. John F. Dando Chief Engineer FWD Corporation Clintonville WS 54929; Dear Mr. Dando: Thank you for your letter of January 11, 1968, to Dr. William Haddon Jr., concerning the location of headlamps on vehicles which are used for snow plow service. I regret that a clerical error resulted in this late reply to your inquiry.; Snow plows are motor vehicles and subject to regulatory actions a established by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that vehicles to whic the standard is applicable be equipped with headlamps that are located not less than 24 inches nor more than 54 inches above the road surface (see Table II of the standard). This requirement does not prohibit the use of additional headlamps located at greater heights as illustrated by the photographs enclosed with your referenced letter.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5265OpenMr. Michinori Hachiya Director and General Manager Nissan Research and Development, Inc. 750 17th Street, N.W. Suite 902 Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Michinori Hachiya Director and General Manager Nissan Research and Development Inc. 750 17th Street N.W. Suite 902 Washington DC 20006; "Dear Mr. Hachiya: This responds to your letter of October 12, 1993 asking several questions concerning the labeling requirements of the recent final rule mandating the installation of air bags in passenger cars and light trucks (58 FR 46551, September 2, 1993). Your questions concern the labeling requirements in this final rule. As you may know, NHTSA has received two petitions for reconsideration of the September 2 final rule. The petitions raise issues concerning the labeling requirements. We will address your first, second, and fourth questions in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration. Your other questions and the response to each follow. The mandatory air bag rule establishes type size and format requirements for the air bag maintenance label (section 4.5.1(a)), but no similar requirements for the air bag warning label in section 4.5.1(b). Are we correct in understanding that the lettering of the warning label may be of any size or format, so long as the letters are legible? May different type size and formats be used if the two labels are combined? You are correct that there are not any size requirements for the air bag warning label. Therefore, so long as the information on the label is legible, the lettering may be of any size. It is unclear what you mean by format, but the warning label must contain the exact words, in the exact order, as specified in section 4.5.1(b). The issue of combining warning and maintenance labels will be addressed in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration. It is our understanding that warning labels that do not refer to air bags or seat belts may continue to be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite from the air bag warning label. Nissan currently places a label on the sun visor of a convertible model which provides instructions regarding the use of the convertible top. May this type of label continue to be placed on the sun visor, so long as it is on the side of the visor opposite from the air bag warning label? Section S4.5.1(b)(2) specifies (1) that no other information shall be on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that no other information concerning air bags or seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Therefore, you are correct that information concerning the operation of a convertible top could be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite the side with the air bag warning label. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0437OpenArmand F. Macmanus, Esq., Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartesville, Oklahoma 74004; Armand F. Macmanus Esq. Phillips Petroleum Company Bartesville Oklahoma 74004; Dear Mr. Macmanus: This is in reply to your letter of June 29, 1971, requesting that w reconsider certain opinions provided to you in a letter dated June 4, 1971, which was in response to your letter of May 11, 1971. The opinions you wish us to reconsider concern whether certain tires used by Phillips for experimental purposes must comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The facts as you state them are the Phillips purchases new passenger car tires that have been certified as conforming to Standard No. 109, buffs them down, and then applies new tread, consisting of experimental rubber compounds, to them. You state that these experimental tires are tested by using them on the public roads, as well as by other methods.; In our letter to you of June 4 we stated that we consider these tire to be new pneumatic tires, and subject to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The Further stated that we considered the testing of them on public highways to be an introduction of these tires in interstate commerce, and that if the tires failed to conform to the standard, then such testing would be in violation of S103(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1)). For the reasons given below, we affirm our earlier opinion. In addition, while not stated in our earlier letter,the failure by Phillips to certify these tires as conforming to Standard No. 109, pursuant to section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. S1403), Standard No. 109, and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) constitutes a violation of second 108(a)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(3)). Each violation of section 108(a)(1) and 108(a)(3) is subject to a civil penalty, as provided in section 110 (15 U.S.C. SS1398,1399).; Your position appears to be that the tires in question are not covere by either Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 117 (retreaded Pneumatic Tires) as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to the use of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase for a purpose other than resale. You claim that Phillips' activity with respect to these tires is merely to use them and, citing section 108(b)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(b)(1)) takes place after the first purchase for a purpose other than resale and is consequently not within the scope of section 108(a)(1). The tires, therefore, need not comply with the standards.; You make a concurrent argument as well, in which you state that th prohibitions in section 108(a)(1) are 'restricted to controlling the sale or resale of tires in commercial channels.' You go on to state that if this were not true, the government would be forced to control the use and resale of the tires by the consumer. You feel that this argument is substantiated by the exemption in Standard No. 109 concerning the *sale* (your emphasis) of 'reclassified tires.'; Phillips' activity under the Act with respect to the tires in questio is not that of a user or consumer, but that of a manufacturer. According to your letter Phillips purchases new passenger tires for the purpose of transforming them into experimental tires. In this regard Phillips is manufacturing a new and different tire, and the original tires are no more than raw materials which become part of the final product manufactured by Phillips. Whether or not Phillips ultimately sells or intends to sell the tires is unimportant in determining whether Phillips is a statutory manufacturer, as the definition of 'manufacturer' under the Act (S102(3), 15 U.S.C. S1391(3)) does not require that the product be manufactured or assembled for sale.; Moreover, you are incorrect in you analysis of the provisions of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(1) proscribed more than the manufacturing for sale, or the sale of motor vh(sic) and motor vehicle equipment. In clear language it also proscribed the introduction of such components in interstate commerce, and prohibits the latter as well as the former activities after the effective date of a motor vehicle safety standard, unless the vehicle or item of equipment conforms to the standard. Contrary to the arguments in your letter, the use of such components on the public highways is an introduction of them in interstate commerce and subject to the prohibitions of section 108(a)(1). The exception to this, 'after the first purchase...in good faith for purposes other than resale' (S108(b)(2)), is intended to exempt used vehicles (and equipment) manufactured after a standard's effective date, as a continued reading of the section, which authorizes the establishment of used vehicle standards, indicates. It allows, for example, a vehicle or item of equipment that was manufactured after the effective date of applicable standard to be resold without requiring the seller to ensure that the vehicle or equipment is in the same condition with regard to the standards as when it was new. this section is not intended to allow individuals to manufacture vehicles or equipment for their own use on public highways without complying with applicable standards.; Your reference to the treatment of reclassified tires is not in point The decision in that rulemaking action was to prohibit either the manufacturer or the sale of these tires, and the latter course was chosen so that manufacturers would not be required to destroy noncertified tires that would be inexpensive and not unsafe for a narrowly prescribed use. In no way does this exemption reflect the limitation that you suggest on the authority of the NHTSA.; As we started to you in our letter of June 4, 1971, the tires that yo manufacture are not retreaded tires as the casing used in their manufacture do not come from used tires. However, these tires are new pneumatic tires, and such are subject to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5635OpenMr. Yoshiaki Matsui Manager Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Section Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9 13, Nakaameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui Manager Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Section Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9 13 Nakaameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; "Re: Accessory Lamp with LEDs Dear Mr. Matsui: This responds to you letter of September 18, 1995, describing a combination tail, stop, and rear turn signal lamp which incorporates incandescent bulbs to perform assigned functions, and which contains light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in a compartment along the outboard side. With respect to red LEDs adjacent to the tail and stop lamp, you state that the lamp is designed to conform to Standard No. 108 using the incandescent bulbs only, and that you regard the LEDs as an 'accessory' acceptable to NHTSA (Your Question 1). We agree. Because the LEDs are not necessary to conformance with Standard No. 108, they are considered supplemental lighting equipment. Such equipment is permitted by paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You state that when the taillamp and LEDs are lit simultaneously, the total intensity does not exceed the maximum intensity specified for a one-section taillamp. It would therefore appear that the presence of the LEDs does not impair the effectiveness of the taillamp (or the stop lamp, which will have a higher intensity). The red LEDs will provide a red color through the amber lens that covers the turn signal lamp, and will remain on when the turn signal is activated (Your Question 2). This design also appears permissible. We have never considered contiguous rear steady-burning red and flashing amber lamps to be prohibited by Standard No. 108 (the basic design of your lamp), and we do not believe that the supplemental red LEDs will impair the effectiveness of the amber turn signal lamp. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4927OpenMr. Darrell E. Lischynski, P.Eng. Project Manager, Energy and Processing Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute P.O. Box 1150 Humboldt, Saskatchewan S0K 2A0 Canada; Mr. Darrell E. Lischynski P.Eng. Project Manager Energy and Processing Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute P.O. Box 1150 Humboldt Saskatchewan S0K 2A0 Canada; "Dear Mr. Lischynski: This responds to your letter of October 3, 199 concerning Calmar Industries' Seat Lift Kit for Ford Supercab trucks. As described by you, the 'Seat Lift Kit is an attachment to raise the rear bench seat in Ford Supercab trucks. The kit does not alter the factory seat, and uses the factory seat belts. However, the seat mounts are changed, and an extension is provided to raise the seat belt attachment point.' You asked which safety standards this kit must meet. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued one safety standard that applies to seats, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and the following safety standards that apply to safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. All safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. However, since you indicate that the kit uses the factory-installed safety belts, it does not appear that you need to be concerned with this standard. Since Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 210 apply only to new vehicles, they are called vehicle standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. Therefore, if the seat lift kit is installed in a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the vehicle with the lift kit installed must conform to these standards. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . . In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installed the lift kit would need to ensure, by carefully comparing the lift kit and its planned installation with the requirements of relevant safety standards, that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.