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: aiam0161OpenMr. William F. Remmert, Secretary-Treasurer, Parsons Mobile Products, Inc., 2013 Belmont, Parsons, KS 67357; Mr. William F. Remmert Secretary-Treasurer Parsons Mobile Products Inc. 2013 Belmont Parsons KS 67357; Dear Mr. Remmert: Thank you for your letter dated March 18, 1969, in which yo state,'[W]e differ from all other motor-home manufacturers in that we use an existing chassis body combination, which has already been certified by General Motors Corporation. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, all certification and safety requirements are being met or exceeded at this time.'; Your letter and the materials that you enclosed with it indicate tha you alter a completed vehicle in a way that affects components necessary for compliance with safety standards, and change the vehicle type from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle within the meaning of regulations issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 CFR S. 371.3). In so doing you are evidently acting as a manufacturer within the meaning of section 102(5) of the Act, and must comply with the Certification Regulations that apply to motor vehicle manufacturers (49 CFR Part 367, pp. 38-40 of the enclosed pamphlet). Copies of the Act and pertinent regulations are enclosed.; The information requested in our letter to you dated February 14, 1969 is still relevant. Could we please have your response to that inquiry as soon as possible.; We trust this reply will be of assistance to you in your desire t comply with existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Performance Analysis Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4821OpenMs. Susan J. Otjen Spill Response Project Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office 3000 Market Street Plaza Suite 534 Salem, Oregon 93710-0198; Ms. Susan J. Otjen Spill Response Project Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office 3000 Market Street Plaza Suite 534 Salem Oregon 93710-0198; "Dear Ms. Otjen: This responds to your request for an opinion whethe Oregon's specifications for Hazardous Material Emergency Response Vehicles are consistent with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Based on the information provided in your letter and telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke of this office, there is no inconsistency betweens Oregon's specifications and the Federal safety standards. The Emergency Response Vehicles in question have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. Oregon's specifications call for the vehicle to include a manual safety belt at each seating position. One of the parties bidding on the contract for these vehicles suggested that these specifications were inadequate to comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards, because, according to the bidder, the Federal standards require a crash test to measure the occupant protection afforded in these vehicles. The bidder's assertion is inaccurate. The occupant protection requirements applicable to these Emergency Response Vehicles are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). That section requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 pounds provide occupant protection at every designated seating position, but gives manufacturers two alternative means of providing the necessary protection. The first option for manufacturers of these vehicles, as set forth in S4.3.2.1, is to provide automatic crash protection (e.g., air bags or automatic safety belts) for occupants. If this option were chosen, the vehicle would be subject to crash testing by NHTSA during its compliance evaluations. To date, no manufacturer of heavy vehicles has ever chosen this option. Instead, they have chosen the second option. The second option, as set forth in S4.3.2.2, is to provide manual safety belts at every designated seating position. No vehicle crash testing is conducted under this option. Instead, compliance evaluations are based on a series of static tests of the safety belt assembly and the anchorage for that assembly. Accordingly, there is nothing in the Oregon specifications for these Emergency Response Vehicles that conflicts with the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0531OpenMr. Michael Petler, Assistant Manager, Product Development Department, U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation, 13767 Freeway Drive, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Mr. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Product Development Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 13767 Freeway Drive Santa Fe Springs CA 90670; Dear Mr. Petler: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1971, enclosing copie of consumer information documents you plan to use to comply with the Consumer Information requirements applicable to motorcycles. You state that you plan to place the information for particular models back to back on the same sheet of paper in order that they may correspond to your specification sheets.; The documents you have submitted, when they contain the appropriat values, will comply with the Consumer Information regulations. There is no prohibition against placing the information for two models back to back on the same sheet as you plan to do.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1834OpenHonorable William D. Hathaway, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable William D. Hathaway United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Hathaway: This is in response to your letter of March 6, 1975, forwardin correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Ron Otis, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's proposed amendment of the bumper standard. You ask that Mr. Otis' comments be included in the appropriate docket.; Mr. Otis directs his comments to what he believes to be a propose requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. His understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The NHTSA published a Federal Register notice on January 2, 1975 (40 FR 10) proposing a reduction in the required performance level of automobile bumpers. The proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face systems.; On March 7, 1975, the NHTSA issued a new Federal Register notice tha expresses the agency's decision that the proposed performance level reduction (January 2, 1975) should not be adopted. The NHTSA did, however, reiterate its position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The proposal also set forth new requirements that would ensure that a wide variety of materials would continue to be used in bumper systems.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3809OpenTerry D. Day, P.E., Talbott Associates Inc., & S.E. 97th Avenue, Portland, OR 97216-2498; Terry D. Day P.E. Talbott Associates Inc. & S.E. 97th Avenue Portland OR 97216-2498; Dear Mr. Day: This responds to your letter to this office asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR S571.208). Specifically, you asked if Standard No. 208 requires that all bus passengers be restrained from ejection in the event of a rollover which is severe enough to destroy the integrity of the passenger compartment. Standard No. 208 specifies that the designated seating position for the driver must offer full automatic protection for the occupant in those circumstances *or* that the seating position must be equipped with a seat belt assembly that conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. No requirements are specified for the other designated seating positions on the bus.; Section S4.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies the protection which buse must afford the occupants, and allows the bus to comply with one of two protection requirements. The first option, set forth in section S4.4.1, is for the vehicle to meet the crash protection requirements set forth in section S5 of the standard (which include restraining the occupant from ejection in the event of a rollover) by means that require no action by the vehicle occupant. This requirement, however, must be met only with respect to an anthropomorphic test device in the driver's designated seating position. The second option, as specified in section S4.4.2, is for the vehicle to be equipped with either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. Again, this option applies only to the driver's designated seating position. Neither of these options sets forth any requirements applicable to any other designated seating position in the bus.; Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions o need more information on this subject.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0726OpenMr. Cesar E. Cavanna, Chief Engineer, Lox Equipment Company, 355 So. Vasco Road, Livermore, CA 94550; Mr. Cesar E. Cavanna Chief Engineer Lox Equipment Company 355 So. Vasco Road Livermore CA 94550; Dear Mr. Cavanna: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1972, concerning problem you are having establishing gross axle weight ratings on vehicles you manufacture. You indicate that the problem occurs because brake drums which you use do not come with manufacturer's ratings, but are merely recommended for use with certain axles. You also ask whether a motor vehicle safety standard will require a 40-foot stopping distance from 20 mph.; Your understanding that brake drum capability does not have to b considered in determining gross axle weight rating is not entirely correct. The gross axle weight rating, which is the load carrying capacity of a single axle system (49 CFR 571.3), is a measure of the safe load-carrying capacity of the entire axle system. Manufacturers should include components in their vehicles that are designed to handle loads up to these ratings. Normally an assembler can rely on the specifications or the advice of a reputable supplier as to the capacity of the supplier's components. We expect manufacturers to exercise due care in ensuring that purchased components are adequate and safe for the vehicles they are used on, in accordance with careful business practices. These do not necessarily have to take the form of formal 'ratings.'; With reference to your question regarding stopping distance, Standar No. 121, Air Brake Systems, effective September 1, 1974 (not July 1, 1972) will, among other things, require a vehicle to stop from 20 mph in 33 and 54 feet on surfaces with skid numbers of 75 and 30 respectively.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5524OpenMr. Robert E. Fouts President Earl's Performance Products 189 W. Victoria St. Long Beach, CA 90805; Mr. Robert E. Fouts President Earl's Performance Products 189 W. Victoria St. Long Beach CA 90805; "Dear Mr. Fouts: This responds to your question whether the whip tes specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, can be interpreted to permit a modification to the test apparatus to facilitate your brake hose's meeting the whip test. As explained below, the answer is no. You describe your brake hose as made of 'extruded teflon armored with stainless steel braid.' You state your brake hose can meet all Standard No. 106 test specifications except for the whip test (See S6.3). The whip test specifies fastening the brake hose on a test apparatus at two ends and cycling for 35 hours. You state because of 'aggravated cyclic stress,' your brake hoses fail before 35 hours. To prevent such failures, you wish to add a 'whip dampener,' a movable 'spherical bearing enclosed in a machined housing', to the brake hose. In addition to the two ends, the whip test apparatus will mount the brake hose at the 'whip dampener.' You wish to know whether the whip test can be interpreted to permit mounting the brake hose at the 'whip dampener.' In our opinion, S6.3 cannot be interpreted to permit mounting the brake hose at the 'whip dampener.' S6.3.1 Apparatus specifies a test apparatus that mounts the brake hose at 'capped end fittings' on one end and 'open end fittings' on the other, and specifies no mounting points in between. Thus, a test apparatus that mounts the brake hose at a 'whip dampener,' which is not an end fitting, would not meet Standard No. 106. However, the issues raised in your letter have led us to consider amending the whip test to permit the 'whip dampener' when testing steel braided brake hoses. Accordingly, we will initiate rulemaking to further consider the issues. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0376OpenKenneth L. Harrigan, Esq., Messrs. Modrall, Seymour, Sperling, Roehl & Harris, Public Service Building, P.O. Box 2168, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; Kenneth L. Harrigan Esq. Messrs. Modrall Seymour Sperling Roehl & Harris Public Service Building P.O. Box 2168 Albuquerque New Mexico 87103; >>>Re: *Gigler v. Volkswagen*<<< Dear Mr. Harringan: In your letter of June 16 to Roman Brooks of this agency you ask fo background information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and Fuel Tank Connections,* effective January 1, 1968.; Section 103(h) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 required that the initial safety standards be 'based upon existing safety standards.' Standard No. 301 was based upon General Services Agency Standard No. 515/26, *Fuel Tanks and Tank Filler Pipes,* effective October 13, 1967. As you know, the GSA standards were applicable only to vehicles purchased by the Federal Government. The two standards, however, are not identical, as an example, Standard No. 301 includes fuel tank connections, while GSA Standard No. 515/26 included a rear end collision test at 15 miles per hour. Perhaps GSA can provide you with background information on their standard if you deem it essential to your case.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5174OpenMr. Jose M. Gonzalez Engineering Manager Kustom Fit 8990 Atlantic Box 3004 South Gate, CA 90280; Mr. Jose M. Gonzalez Engineering Manager Kustom Fit 8990 Atlantic Box 3004 South Gate CA 90280; "Dear Mr. Gonzalez: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1993 regarding testing for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You are a manufacturer of seating products for the recreation vehicle industry. You propose to perform a baseline HYGE sled test using all OEM hardware and seats and then to perform a second test using OEM hardware and the seats you manufacture. You asked: If the results of the test using our seats are equal or better than those obtained values with the OEM seats and hardware, does this test prove that our seats are safe to use instead of OEM? Can these results and procedures be acceptable as do diligent (sic) and can our seats then be certified for use in these vehicles regarding FMVSS 208? Some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. (I note that a number of other safety standards also include requirements relevant to seats, including Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.) The Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Standard No. 208, the subject of your inquiry, is applicable to vehicles and not to individual items of equipment (except for pressure devices and explosive devices used in air bags). Therefore, if one of your seats is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part: 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. . . . Therefore, none of these entities could install one of your seats if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards. In all of these situations, you, as the seat manufacturer, would have no certification responsibilities under Standard No. 208. Therefore, with respect to that standard, the remainder of the discussion in this letter is applicable to vehicle manufacturers (including alterers). Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. Under certain circumstances, particularly if the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle, the manufacturer may be asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised 'due care' in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle did not in fact comply with the safety standards. This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute 'due care' in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. You should also note that, while the exercise of 'due care' may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards. 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: aiam1137OpenMr. Paul G. Scully, Vice President, Grote Manufacturing Company, State Route 7, Post Office Box 766, Madison, Indiana 47250; Mr. Paul G. Scully Vice President Grote Manufacturing Company State Route 7 Post Office Box 766 Madison Indiana 47250; Dear Mr. Scully: This is in response to your letter of May 3, 1973, which request written confirmation that Standard 125, Warning devices, 49 CFR 571.125, requires the lower edge of the reflective surface of the equilateral triangle to be not less that 1 inch above the ground.; Your interpretation of the is correct. The device consists of a equilateral triangle and a support structure. S5.2.3 requires the outer border of the triangular portion to be red reflex reflective material and the inner border of the triangular portion to be orange fluorescent material. Therefore only that portion of the device within these borders is the 'equilateral triangle' and that portion outside these borders is the support structure.; The support structure must of course touch the ground at some point and the standard permits a support design which includes a horizontal base member less than 1 inch from the ground. It is the reflective surface within the borders that must be not less than 1 inch from the ground.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.