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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam0387OpenMr. Robert S. Hanser, Secretary-Treasurer, Superex of Ramsey Ltd., P.O. Box 10, Ramsey, NJ 07446; Mr. Robert S. Hanser Secretary-Treasurer Superex of Ramsey Ltd. P.O. Box 10 Ramsey NJ 07446; Dear Mr. Hanser: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1971, in which you stat that you are interested in determining whether a particular child seat meets Federal requirements, and whether you may submit a sample fo (sic) us for approval.; The NHTSA does not furnish approvals, or statements that a particula product complies with an applicable Federal standard. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.) it is the responsibility of each manufacturer both to determine that his products comply with any applicable safety standard, and to certify that the product complies in accordance with section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed).; Manufacturers generally either test their products to the applicabl standards in their own facilities, or contract with an independent test laboratory to perform the appropriate tests. It is up to the manufacturer to determine what means are best suited for his particular product. You should note, however, that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a manufacturer to use due care both in manufacturing his products to comply with applicable standards, and ensuring that his certification that they comply is not false or misleading (Section 108). Violators of those requirements may be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions provided for in the Act (Sections 109 and 110).; A copy of the Act, with the sections specified above marked for you convenience, is enclosed. If you have any questions concerning its application to you, please write to us and we will be happy to answer them for you.; Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Crashworthiness, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2210OpenMr. John L. O'Connell, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles, State Street, Wethersfield, CT 06109; Mr. John L. O'Connell State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles State Street Wethersfield CT 06109; Dear Mr. O'Connell: This is in response to your letters of June 24, 1975, and May 30, 1975 regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217 and 205. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions.; In your letter of June 24, 1975, you asked whether Standard No. 21 applies to school buses, and if so, whether Connecticut's regulations concerning emergency exits for school buses are in conflict with the Federal standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, 49 CFR 571.217, was amended to specify requirements for emergency doors for school buses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 202 of the Motor Vehicle and Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392).; Since Standard No. 217, as amended, applies to school buses, effectiv October 26, 1976, any State regulations which differ are voided by S103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The Connecticut regulations are, therefore, preempted by Standard No. 217, since S103(d) requires the State regulations to be 'identical' to the Federal standard.; It should be noted, however, that while the State of Connecticut ma not issue a regulation which differs from similarly applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements, Connecticut (or any of its political subdivisions) may in its own contracts for school bus purchases require more stringent specifications, as long as the Federal minimum requirements are met.; In your letter of May 30, 1975, you asked whether Lucite AR and othe similar rigid plastics are allowed for use as side windows of buses under Standard No. 205, even though S5.1.2.1 does not list the use for 'Item 12' rigid plastics.; 'Item 12' is a classification created by the NHTSA for rigid plastic which comply with all the tests required of 'Item 5' rigid plastics as defined in ANS Z26, with the exception of the test for resistance to undiluted denatured alcohol. Paragraph S5.1.2.1, Item 12 - *Rigid plastics*, provides that 'Item 5' safety plastic materials may be used in motor vehicles *only* in the locations specified, at levels not requisite for driving visibility. These locations include 'Standee windows in buses' and 'readily removable windows'. However, there is no provision in S5.1.2.1 which allows the use of 'Item 12' plastic materials for fixed, side windows in buses.; Standard No. 205 defines readily removable windows in buses having GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds to include pushout windows and windows mounted in emergency exits that can be manually pushed out of their location in the vehicle without the use of tools, whether or not one side remains hinged to the vehicle. Rigid plastics can only be used for side windows in buses if the side window is a readily removable window as defined by S5.1.1.4 or a standee window.; I hope this letter clarifies your questions concerning Standard Nos 217 and 205. Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3817OpenMr. H. Nakaya, Office Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc., 24402 Sinacola Court, Farmington Hills, MI 48018; Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills MI 48018; Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1984, asking thre questions concering the compliance test procedures of Standard No. 210 that would be used in testing a truck with a forward tilt cabin. The answers to your questions are discussed below.; You first asked whether in doing the compliance test, 'may the tes sample consist of just the cabin with the production seating system installed?' In conducting Standard No. 210 compliance tests, the agency conducts the test on a fully assembled vehicle (i.e., cabin and chassis/frame).; You then asked whether the tilt cabin rear latch bracketry could b reinforced during the testing. The answer is no, the agency tests the vehicle as manufactured.; Finally, you asked 'should the tilt cabin latch bracketry and mechanis be considered within the scope' of the Standard No. 210 compliance testing. The answer is no. The purpose of the standard is to measure the performance of the seat belt anchorages. A falure of the tilt cab latch would not constitute a failure of Standard No. 210. I must note, however, that a failure of a tilt cab latch under the loading experienced during a Standard No. 210 compliance test could raise the question of whether the latch contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I urge you to design the latch in such a manner that it will withstand the loads generated during a crash.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2705OpenMr. G. Schwarz, Manager, Production Engineering, Motor Coach Industries, Inc., Pembina, ND 58271; Mr. G. Schwarz Manager Production Engineering Motor Coach Industries Inc. Pembina ND 58271; Dear Mr. Schwartz: This in reply to your letter of October 27, 1977, with respect t distribution of a service bulletin on the subject of 'New Generator Control and Low Air Switch Setting.' As your inconsequentiality petition is now pending (Docket No. IP77-14) you have asked whether you may 'hold further actions or procedures on [the] two items [discussed] pending the outcome' of the petition.; The NHTSA does not advise manufacturers to withhold corrective actio while inconsequentiality petitions are pending. That decision must be made by the manufacturer as an independent exercise of its judgment. However, a company that has filed an inconsequentiality petition is not required to notify and remedy pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act until such time as its petition has been denied. Your service bulletin does not fulfill the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 and if you issue it now, in the event of the denial of the petition you would be required to notify all owners of vehicles which remain uncorrected.; Yours truly, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0738OpenCEAT S.p.A., Torino, Casella Postale 509; CEAT S.p.A. Torino Casella Postale 509; Gentlemen: This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1972, inquiring whether th State of Maryland may require tires to be labeled with a 'VI' marking.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 1 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides in pertinent part:; >>>'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no state or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment andy safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical with the Federal standard.'<<<; This provision, considered with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 109, prohibits the State of Maryland or any State from imposing any safety labeling requirements, for passenger car tires other than those contained in that Federal standard. Any differing safety labeling requirements include the 'VI' you mentioned, are thus preempted void.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1980OpenMr. Ray Hartman, Crown Coach Corporation, 2500 East Twelfth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021; Mr. Ray Hartman Crown Coach Corporation 2500 East Twelfth Street Los Angeles CA 90021; Dear Mr. Hartman: This is in response to your letter of June 26 in which you request clarification of the definition of 'date of manufacture' as that term is found in Section 567.4 of the certification regulations.; As your vehicles are not manufactured in two or more stages, you ar subject to the requirements of Section 567.4 with respect to certification. Section 567.4(g)(2) specifies the month and year of manufacture as 'the time during which work was completed at the place of main assembly of the vehicle.' This is when the vehicle is finished by you. The vehicle should be certified as meeting all of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable as of that date.; We trust that the above information is of assistance. If you have an further inquiries, please let us know.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0692OpenMr. O. L. Pierson, Legal Department, Rohm and Haas Company, Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA, 19105; Mr. O. L. Pierson Legal Department Rohm and Haas Company Independence Mall West Philadelphia PA 19105; Dear Mr. Pierson: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1972, in which you as certain questions regarding Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' the proposed amendment to that standard (36 F.R. 9565, May 26, 1971), and future requirements for labeling of safety glazing. Your questions are restated below, followed in each case by our response.; >>>1. We have heard that clarifying amendments for MVSS 302 are bein prepared and may be promulgated soon. Can you tell us approximately when such information may be published?; An amendment to Standard No. 302, based upon the notice of May 26 1971, and other information that has been presented to the agency is currently in preparation, and we expect its issuance within the next several weeks.; 2. We are concerned about 1973 requirements for labeling of safet glazing. Will your identification requirements prevail over state regulations which require additional and/or different information?; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that Federa motor vehicle safety standards preempt State requirements to the extent that those requirements differ from the Federal standard regarding the same aspect of performance. We cannot determine whether specific State labeling requirements would be preempted by present or future Federal requirements without knowing specifically what the State requirements might be.; 3. If an exception is made in Standard No. 302 for small plastic parts would that exception include light-transmitting parts such as clock dials and instrument dials.; Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302, in enumerating those motor vehicl components which must meet the standard's requirements, does not list either of the components you mention. Accordingly, they are not subject to the standard unless they are 'designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash,' which appears to be unlikely.<<<; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2355OpenMr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activities Staff, General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48093; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation Warren MI 48093; Dear Mr. Martin: It has come to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration that General Motors Corporation is planning to include in its 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document the following statement with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*:; >>>Conformity with FMVSS 301 is not substantially determined by th design of this incomplete vehicle and General Motors makes no representation as to conformity with this Standard.; The use of this statement would not comply with 49 CFR Part 568 *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*.; A copy of the March 8, 1976, letter from Mr. W.J. Owen of the Cadilla Motor Car Division to Mr. R.B. Kurre of the Wayne Corporation is attached for your reference. That letter was included in the petition of Wayne's Miller-Meteor Division for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 as applied to ambulances and funeral coaches that Wayne manufactures using Cadillac commercial chassis.; I understand that these chassis are delivered to Wayne with the fue system components already installed, that Wayne removes certain components in order to mount the body and that those components are reinstalled after the mounting of the body.; The incomplete vehicle document is required by S568.4(a)(7) to includ a--; >>>[l]isting (sic) by number of each standard...followed in each cas by one of the following types of statement, as applicable:; (i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to th standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle. ...; (ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture unde which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard. ...; (iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is no substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.<<<; There is a factual limitation on use of the third statement. It may no be used for standards conformity to which is substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle. Where the basic fuel system components, including fuel tank and lines and filler pipe, are included in the incomplete vehicles, compliance of the completed vehicle with Standard No. 301-75 is substantially determined by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer. Therefore, General Motors is required to include a statement of the first or second type with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the incomplete vehicle documents accompanying Cadillac commercial chassis that are manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, and designed for completion into multipurpose passenger vehicles. Such chassis that are manufactured before that date are not required by Part 568 to include any statement concerning Standard No. 301-75, because there are no fuel system integrity requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles until that date.; The above discussion also applies to any other commercial chassi manufactured by General Motors for sale as incomplete vehicles.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5490OpenMr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director NYSBDA 1111 Lac De Ville Boulevard Apartment No. 309 Rochester, NY 14618; Mr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director NYSBDA 1111 Lac De Ville Boulevard Apartment No. 309 Rochester NY 14618; "Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your letter of January 3, 1995 telefaxed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the bottom edge of a flip-up school bus seat, when in the vertical position, could extend past the rearward edge of a side emergency exit door a maximum of 3/4 inch. The short answer to your question is no. You enclosed with your letter a copy of Figure 5B of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, which shows the permitted positions of the seats forward and rearward of a school bus side emergency exit door. You drew in a depiction of the flip- up seat bottom showing the seat bottom extending into the access aisle a maximum of 3/4 inch. You stated that even with such intrusion, 11.75 inches of clear aisle space remains without obstruction of the door release mechanism. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(i) of FMVSS No. 217 provides that no seat or restraining barrier shall be installed within the area bounded by a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearward edge of the door opening frame and a vertical transverse plane parallel to that plane at a distance of 30 centimeters forward of that plane. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii) then provides: A seat bottom may be located within the area described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within the area described in paragraph (i) when the seat bottom is vertical. (See Figure 5B). (Emphasis added). This requirement for a specific minimum aisle space leading to side emergency exit doors on school buses was contained in the final rule issued by this agency on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) to permit bus occupants unobstructed access to the emergency exit door. The language is very clear. No variation from that requirement is permitted. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0368OpenDouglas H. West, Esquire, Messrs. Hill, Lewis, Adams, Goodrich & Tait, 3700 Penobscot Building, Detroit, MI 48226; Douglas H. West Esquire Messrs. Hill Lewis Adams Goodrich & Tait 3700 Penobscot Building Detroit MI 48226; Dear Mr. West: This is in reply to your letter of May 10 to Francis Armstrong Director of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of Vehicle Industries, Inc. Your client wishes to import dune buggy chasses (sic), either in kit or assembled form, for sale to a distributor-dealer organization and subsequent resale by them to retail customers who will complete the final manufacture of the incomplete vehicle as a dune buggy. You have asked questions concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards ('safety standards') and other regulations.; Your letter indicates that you are familiar with our two Mini-Bik Interpretations and the criteria we use in determining whether a vehicle is a 'motor vehicle' as defined in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 'Act'). There have been no further additions to these Interpretations. We view a dune buggy as a 'motor vehicle' primarily because it is licensable for use on the public roads. Conversely all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and some categories of mini-bikes are not considered 'motor vehicles' because of State statutory prohibitions forbidding their registration for on-road use. Because a dune buggy is constructed with 'special features for occasional off-road use' it is a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' ('MPV') under the safety standards, and must, at the time of its manufacture, comply with all safety standards applicable to MPVs. Equipping a vehicle with speed restrictive components would not affect this opinion unless the equipment rendered the completed vehicle unlicensable for on-road use.; Until January 1, 1972, the product Vehicle Industries wishes to import either in kit form or as an assemblage, is considered 'motor vehicle equipment' under the Act. It is not a chassis- cab, as you suggested, because it has no cab. Since section 102(5) of the Act includes an importer in the definition of 'manufacturer,' Vehicle Industries is considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle equipment it imports, and responsible for compliance of that equipment with applicable safety standards.; Regulated equipment items for MPVs and corresponding safety standard are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), brake fluid (No. 116), glazing (No. 205), seat belt assemblies (No. 209), and wheel covers (No. 211). If the kit or assemblage contains any of these items, the item must comply upon importation, and Vehicle Industries must provide certification to the distributor-dealer that the equipment item meets the appropriate safety standard. The certification obligation is imposed by section 114 of the Act as amplified by a notice published on November 4, 1967, copy enclosed. There are no other labeling or informational obligations. The requirements of this paragraph remain in effect after January 1, 1972, to any dune buggy chassis imported in kit form.; If the chassis is imported in assembled form, on and after January 1 1972, Vehicle Industries as importer-manufacturer of an assemblage will be considered an 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' and the assemblage an 'incomplete vehicle' as those terms are defined in 49 CFR Part 568, the regulations governing vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I enclose a copy of Part 568 for your guidance and call your attention to S 568.4, requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Section 568.4(a)(7) will require Vehicle Industries to provide with the incomplete vehicle a list of those standards applicable to MPVs together with one of three appropriate statements for each such standard. If Vehicle Industries has provided certification prior to January 1, 1972, covering an equipment item in the assemblage, for instance brake hoses, the appropriate statement on and after January 1, 1972 would appear to be set out in S 568.4(a)(7)(i), that the vehicle when completed will comply with Standard No. 106, *Brake Hose and Brake Hose Assemblies*, if the final assembler makes no change in the brake hoses or brake hose assemblies. You ask if these regulations may be followed as a 'guideline' before January 1, 1972, because the S 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement is a representation of compliance, it is a *de facto* certification of compliance and, in my opinion, Vehicle Industries may provide such a S568.4(a)(7)(i) statement in advance of January 1, 1972, that includes a regulated equipment item, to satisfy the existing equipment certification requirement.; You have also asked if it is possible to 'retail the unit in it present form with an item of equipment on it' that doesn't comply with the safety standards. The answer is no, if that item is directly regulated by a safety standard. However, if a safety standard applies to vehicle categories only - and most of them do - then an item encompassed in that safety standard need not comply until time of final assembly. For example, Standard No. 107, *Reflecting Surfaces*, applies to MPVs and passenger cars, and not to the equipment items specified therein. Consequently, the horn ring and steering wheel assembly hub of the assemblage need not have a finish in accordance with standard No. 107, but these items must comply with reflectance requirements when the assemblage is completed as a dune buggy.; In closing, I want to call your attention to Section 110(e) of the Ac and 49 CFR S 551.45, which require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment who offer their products for importation into the United States appoint a resident agent for service of process. I enclose a copy of S 551.45 with the informational requirements underlined and request that you ask the Spanish manufacturer of the dune buggy chassis to file a designation of agent with us.; If you have any further questions I shall be happy to answer them fo you.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting 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.