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: aiam4715OpenMr. Frederick H. Dambach President Execuline 997 Brook Rd. Lakewood, NJ 08701; Mr. Frederick H. Dambach President Execuline 997 Brook Rd. Lakewood NJ 08701; "Dear Mr. Dambach: This is in response to your letter requesting that reconsider my conclusion in a July 26, 1989, letter to you interpreting emergency exit requirements contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in responding. As is explained below, after reconsideration, I must still conclude that exits located in the roof of a bus do not satisfy the requirement contained in S5.2 of Standard 217, that 40% of the required emergency exit space on a transit bus must be located on each side of the bus. Your August letter argues that roof exits must be counted in determining compliance with S5.2 because the standard does not specifically state that a side is that part of a bus that is perpendicular to the floor. Instead, relying upon provisions of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) regulations at 49 CFR Part 393, you assert that the side of a bus is any part to the left or right of the roof centerline. While this may be true under the FHWA regulations, those regulations are being used in a completely different context than Standard No. 217, and concern lighting and marker requirements and specifications for towing for motor carriers. Standard 217, on the other hand, specifies requirements for the operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits in buses to ensure readily accessible emergency egress from these vehicles. Because of the different purpose and context of Standard 217 and the FHWA regulations, the definition of the word 'side' is not necessarily the same for those regulations. In fact, as I explained in detail in my previous letter to you, the structure and purpose of Standard 217 show that the word 'side' has a different meaning in Standard 217 than it does when used by the FHWA in Part 393. Moreover, and contrary to the assertion in your letter, Standard 217 is not a subpart of Part 393. Standard 217 is found in 49 CFR Part 571. The Standard is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), administered by NHTSA. Under Federal law, these standards are applicable to manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles. On the other hand, Part 393, administered by the FHWA, is a part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which are applicable to motor carriers. Although NHTSA and FHWA coordinate with each other to avoid conflicts in our respective regulatory programs, the FHWA does not have authority over motor vehicle manufacturers. Likewise, NHTSA does not have authority over motor carriers. This agency has statutory authority to regulate the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Additionally, our statute prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. However, this agency has no authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. Hence, NHTSA cannot require the vehicles used in your company's fleet to comply with Standard 217 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the individual States are free to regulate the operation and use of vehicles within their borders, provided that those regulations do not contravene any Federal laws or regulations. In this case, the State of New Jersey has chosen to adopt the provisions of Standard 217 and make it applicable to vehicles operated within New Jersey. This choice by the State of New Jersey does not contravene any of this agency's statutes or regulations. Thus, while I appreciate that New Jersey's decision to apply Standard 217 to vehicles operated in the State may have caused you difficulties, the wisdom and fairness of that decision is a matter to be decided by the State of New Jersey, not this agency. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1147OpenMr. Charles H. Sturgeon, Traffic Manager, Grove Manufacturing Company, Shady Grove, PA 17256; Mr. Charles H. Sturgeon Traffic Manager Grove Manufacturing Company Shady Grove PA 17256; Dear Mr. Sturgeon: This is in reply to your letter of April 23, 1973, requesting ou confirmation of certain issues discussed by you, and Michael Peskoe and David Fay of NHTSA, in a meeting in Mr. Peskoe's office on April 19, 1973.; It is correct that the NHTSA does not presently employ safet inspectors to inspect vehicles in service. Such inspections are made by inspectors of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in the Federal Highway Administration, and it is true that their primary interest is the enforcement of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations (49 CFR Parts 301-398). But if these investigators note violations of NHTSA regulations, the information will be forwarded to NHTSA and appropriate action will be taken.; It is correct that components of a vehicle in service may be added removed, or relocated at the discretion of a vehicle owner without violating NHTSA regulations. However, gross vehicle and axle weight ratings established by the vehicle manufacturer must be based on configurations of the vehicle which the manufacturer expects will be utilized in service. It is also correct that the weight imposed on each axle should not exceed the certified weight rating for each axle, but may be less than the certified weight rating.; Finally, it is correct that gross axle weight ratings may b established with a view towards the weight limitations of States in which the vehicle will be used.; Gross axle and vehicle weight ratings, under NHTSA regulations, ar manufacturers' figures, and may be set at any level as long as the figures are consistent with the limitations specified in the NHTSA certification regulations. However, the weight ratings must also, of course, be consistent with the vehicle's load-carrying capacity.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3480OpenMr. T. Fumima, President, Taiyo Trading USA Inc., 1543 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90015; Mr. T. Fumima President Taiyo Trading USA Inc. 1543 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90015; Dear Mr. Fumima: This responds to your letter of June 17, 1981, asking about th applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a manually operated door opener that you are considering importing. The door opener is designed for passenger cars and taxis and allows the driver to open the rear door by shifting a lever located by the driver's side.; By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals o vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' Emphasis added. ; The agency does not have any regulations covering manually operate door openers. However, installation of such a device may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards. If any standard would be affected, it would probably be Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*. For your convenience, we have enclosed a copy of that standard, which includes performance requirements for a vehicle's latch and striker assembly, door hinges, and door locks. However, based on the limited drawings included with your letter, it is not possible for us to determine whether a vehicle's compliance with that standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 206 to make that determination.; If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai 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.<<<; Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Yo may also wish to check with state and local authorities to determine whether the use of your device is affected by their regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4345OpenMr. Gary Harris, Division Quality Control Manager, LSI Safelite, 801 South Wichita, P. O. Box 1879, Wichita, KS 67201; Mr. Gary Harris Division Quality Control Manager LSI Safelite 801 South Wichita P. O. Box 1879 Wichita KS 67201; Dear Mr. Harris: This responds to your letter of February 17, 1987, concerning the us of a DOT code number on glazing material by someone other than the prime manufacturer. I regret the delay in our response. You indicate in your letter that a customer has requested that you, as the prime manufacturer of the glazing material, include in your trademark on each piece of glazing material the DOT code number issued to you. You refer to the particular glazing material in question as 'stock glass', since a customer purchases sheets for glazing material from you and then cuts the glazing into pieces for various unknown applications. You object to this request, because you have no control over the use to which the glazing material will be put. You request our opinion and we offer the following.; The marking and certification requirements for glazing materials ar continued in S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, and include different marking requirements for a prime manufacturer and other types of manufacturers. (A prime glazing material manufacturer is defined in S6.1 as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.) The only glazing material which *must* carry the DOT code mark is that produced by a prime manufacturer and designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper. Since you specifically indicate that you do not know the use of which the glazing material will be put, there is no *requirement* that this glazing material carry your manufacturer's code.; The purpose of the manufacturer's code is to help the agency identif the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. The difference in the marking requirements was designed to help the agency distinguish between glazing in a motor vehicle that had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation. In a July 13, 1976, letter to 'Lucite' Acrylic Sheet Products, we stated that the certification requirements had become widely understood and uniformly practiced throughout the glazing industry, which has aided the traceability of glazing for enforcement purposes. We went on to say that, for these reasons, we were no longer prohibiting the use of the prime glazing manufacturer's code number by the distributor or manufacturer who cuts the glazing, if the prime glazing manufacturer grants permission for such use of the code number to the distributor or manufacturer.; In summary, you may include, if you wish, your DOT code number o glazing material not designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, but sold by you to others. There is no obligation to do so, however. If you have further questions please feel free to contact us.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5387OpenMr. Ivan L. Bost Director of Engineering Comm-Trans 792 S. Cooper St. Memphis, TN 38104; Mr. Ivan L. Bost Director of Engineering Comm-Trans 792 S. Cooper St. Memphis TN 38104; Dear Mr. Bost: This responds to your letter of April 6, 1994 requesting information on the type of seat belt required at the rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds but less than 10,000 pounds. Your letter states that these vehicle have a capacity for 10 to 15 persons, including the driver. Before explaining the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles, I would like to clarify two of the terms that I will be using. A 'rear designated seating position' is any seating position to the rear of the front seat(s). An 'outboard designated seating position' is a designated seating position within 12 inches of the side of the vehicle. However, the latter term does not include any designated seating position adjacent to a walkway that is located between the seat and the side of the vehicle and is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions. Thus, with respect to a passenger van having a two person bench seat behind the front seats, the latter term typically does not include the rightmost of those two positions. The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208. Passenger vans with a seating capacity of 10 persons or less would be considered multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under NHTSA's regulations. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in an MPV, other than a motor home, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A Type 1 (lap) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions. Sections S4.2.4.2 and S4.2.4.3 of Standard No. 208 allow the Type 2 seat belt assembly to have a detachable upper torso portion if the seating position can be adjusted to a direction other than forward-facing or if the seat is designed to be easily removed and replaced. Vans with a seating capacity of more than 10 persons would be considered buses under NHTSA's regulations. Section S4.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in a bus, other than a school bus, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions. 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: aiam2442OpenMr. Charles V. Mulhern, Supervisor, School Bus Inspection, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Registry of Motor Vehicle, 100 Nashua Street, Boston, MA 02114; Mr. Charles V. Mulhern Supervisor School Bus Inspection The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle 100 Nashua Street Boston MA 02114; Dear Mr. Mulhern: This responds to your June 29, 1976, question whether specific aspect of Massachusett's (sic) requirements for the construction, location, and size of fuel tanks in school buses would be preempted by the Federal requirements for school bus fuel system integrity that become effective April 1, 1977 (Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*). I regret that we have not responded to your questions sooner.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac (the Act) 15 U.S.C. S1392(d) does preempt State motor vehicle safety requirements of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal standard applicable to the same aspect of performance. In the cases you cite, it appears that the fuel tank seams and the location of the tank are items of design that are identical to the aspects of performance (integrity of the fuel system) regulated by the barrier impact test of Standard No. 301-75. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that these aspects of fuel system construction are preempted by Standard No. 301-75, effective April 1, 1977. In developing the performance requirements of the standard, the agency did not intend to regulate fuel tank size.; The second sentence of S103(d) clarifies that the limitation of safet regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or its political subdivisions could specify additional fuel system features in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit those governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with the applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0185OpenMr. Frank Stewart, Sales Representative, La France, Precision Casting Company, 1462 South Velacco Street, Los Angeles, CA 90023; Mr. Frank Stewart Sales Representative La France Precision Casting Company 1462 South Velacco Street Los Angeles CA 90023; Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1969, to Mr. Lowell K Bredwell. Your letter was misplaced and did not reach me until now. I apologize for the delay.; You submitted a label, asking whether it would comply with th Certification Regulations for motor vehicles, with particular reference to campers, trailers and motor homes. The current Certification regulations for motor vehicles, published July 9, 1969 (34 F.R. 11360, copy enclosed), require that the vehicle label contain, in the order listed:; >>>1. name of manufacturer, 2. month and year during which manufacture of the vehicle is completed, 3. the following statement-- 'THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFET STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE,'; 4. vehicle identification number, 5. (for multipurpose passenger vehicles only, as defined in 49 CFR S 371.3) the words 'TYPE MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLE.'<<<; You should note that the above requirements only apply to complet vehicles, which include motor homes and trailers, and not to items of equipment, such as campers, which will be only part of a vehicle. No regulations have been issued as yet for the certification of equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, equipment that either is covered by a standard or, as in the case of most campers, contains other equipment such as glazing that is covered by a standard, must carry a label or tag certifying that the equipment conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The label that you submitted differs from the above requirements i several respects. If you or your customers have further questions concerning the certification requirements, we will be please to answer them.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Performance Analysis Motor vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2012OpenMr. Leon C. Huneke, Power Controls Division, Midland-Ross Corporation, 490 S. Chestnut Street, Owosso, Michigan 48867; Mr. Leon C. Huneke Power Controls Division Midland-Ross Corporation 490 S. Chestnut Street Owosso Michigan 48867; Dear Mr. Huneke: #Please forgive the delay in responding to your lette of March 24, 1975, to Mr. Schwimmer of this office concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to new brake hose assemblies whose end fittings are partially disassembled by vehicle manufacturers. #You have described brake hose assemblies equipped with permanent end fittings containing sacrificial sleeves. Although the assemblies are complete when delivered by you to a vehicle manufacturer, they must be partially disassembled by him (because they lack swivel fittings) to facilitate installation in vehicles. At this point the vehicle manufacturer does not, as you have suggested, become the hose assembler, assuming responsibility for the assemblies' compliance with the standard and relieving you of responsibility for their continued compliance. He is not, however, required to remove the assembler's band which you have installed pursuant to S5.2..4 (as incorporated by reference in S7.2 and S9.1), although he is free to do so, nor is he required to install his own band, because of the exception in S5.2.2 for assemblies which are assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in his own vehicles. Furthermore, he is not required to replace the sacrificial sleeve in the end fittings, because that sleeve has not been used. #An aftermarket purchaser who disassembles and then reassembles one of your assemblies also relieves you of responsibility for its continued compliance with the standard. He is not required to remove your assembler's band, nor is he required to replace the sacrificial sleeve. #Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3253OpenMr. Don Gerken, Product Engineer, Cosco Home Products, 2525 State Street, Columbus, IN 47201; Mr. Don Gerken Product Engineer Cosco Home Products 2525 State Street Columbus IN 47201; Dear Mr. Gerken: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1980, to Mr. Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. You asked whether the labels and installation diagrams required by the standard must comply with Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. In addition, you asked whether an upholstery tag, required by State law, attached to the seat must comply with Standard No. 302.; Section 5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires 'each material used in a chil restraint system' to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. Because the label, installation diagram and tag materials are affixed to the child restraint, they would have to comply with Standard No. 302.; Section 4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 provides that 'any material tha adheres to other materials at every point of contact' shall meet the performance requirements of the standard 'when tested as a composite with the other materials.' Thus, if the label, diagram and tag are affixed to the plastic shell of the restraint so that they adhere to the shell at every point of contact, they would be tested with the shell. If the label, diagram and tag do not adhere at every point of contact, section 4.2.1 requires them to meet the performance requirement of the standard when tested separately.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4596OpenRobert C. Craig Quality Control Manager Cosco, Inc. 2525 State Street Columbus, IN 47201; Robert C. Craig Quality Control Manager Cosco Inc. 2525 State Street Columbus IN 47201; "Dear Mr. Craig: This responds to your February 3, 1989 letter to Mr George Parker, our Associate Administrator for Enforcement, seeking an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR /571.213). Specifically, paragraph S5.5 of that standard requires each child restraint system to be permanently labeled with certain specified information. One of the items of information required to be permanently labeled on the child restraint is the manufacturer's recommendations for the maximum weight and height of children who can safely occupy the system, and those weight and height recommendations must be expressed in English units (pounds and inches). Your letter stated that your company would like to express its maximum weight and height recommendations in both English units and equivalent metric units (kilograms and meters), and asked whether this would be permitted by Standard 213. As long as the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to cause confusion, Standard 213 does not prohibit manufacturers from expressing required information in equivalent English and metric units. For each of the labeling requirements set forth in NHTSA's regulations, this agency has consistently taken the position that manufacturers may present information in addition to the required information, provided that the additional information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse the user. Moreover, the agency has already concluded that passenger car tires may be labeled with required information expressed in equivalent English and metric units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. We would apply the same reasoning in interpreting the labeling requirements of Standard 213. That is, Standard 213 permits manufacturers to present the required information in both English and metric units, provided that the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse persons using the child restraint system. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
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.