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: aiam2871OpenMr. Charles J. Kerr, Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, Post Office Drawer 28510, San Antonio, TX 78284; Mr. Charles J. Kerr Southwest Research Institute 6220 Culebra Road Post Office Drawer 28510 San Antonio TX 78284; Dear Mr. Kerr: This responds to your June 27, 1978, letter concerning the requirement of Safety Standard No. 207 as they would apply to pedestal seat assemblies for use in van vehicles. You ask whether your test methodology is consistent with the requirements of the standard and whether the pedestal base is considered part of the seat assembly.; As you know, the agency does not approve a manufacturer's test methods A manufacturer must exercise due care to ascertain that his product is in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. While your test methods appear to be reasonable, the agency will test seats in the vehicle rather than on a surrogate test frame. You must exercise due care to assure that your simulated test is a true determination whether the seats would comply with the standard when tested as provided in that standard. (The vehicle manufacturer is, of course, responsible for compliance with Standard 207.); Regarding your second question, the pedestal base would be considere part of the seat assembly for purposes of Standard 207. This means that the agency would test the entire assembly by applying a force of 20 times the combined weight of the seat and the pedestal, contrary to your simulated test procedure of using only the weight of the seat frame and adjuster, without the pedestal base attached.; Finally, the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Bel Assembly Anchorages*, (5,000 pounds) are applied simultaneously with the force requirements in Standard No. 207, if the anchorages are connected to the vehicle seat, to the pedestal, or to the pedestal base.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions, an please excuse the delay in this response.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3763OpenMr. Richard P. Keim, Manager of Automotive Glass, Replacement Services, Libby=Owens-Ford Company, 811 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 799, Toledo, OH 43695; Mr. Richard P. Keim Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services Libby=Owens-Ford Company 811 Madison Avenue P.O. Box 799 Toledo OH 43695; Dear Mr. Keim: This responds to your letter of September 26, 1983, regarding th certification and marking requirements for glazing under S6 of Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. You stated that you are interested in 'out-sourcing some of your replacement auto glass requirements' to other manufacturers and sought clarification on four points concerning glazing identification.; Section 6 of Standard No. 205 deals specifically with the certificatio and marking requirements for glazing materials. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). You ask whether it is permissible under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to allow another manufacturer, using its own DOT code mark, to put an LOF trademark and logo on its glass.; Section 6 of ANS Z26 states that a manufacturer shall mark safet glazing materials with its own 'distinctive designation or trademark.' The purpose behind these markings was to aid in the tracing of glazing materials and the enforcement of applicable standards. Your letter states that the other manufacturer will place their DOT code mark on the safety glass. Since the other manufacturer is using its own DOT code mark, the tracing and enforcement policies will not be circumvented. Therefore, under these circumstances, the use of LOF's logo and trademark is not violative of Standard No. 205.; Further, you ask whether another glass manufacturer can use LOF's 'M number on his glass with LOF's permission. As long as the model number is an accurate description of the specific glazing material being produced, the other manufacturer may use it.; Lastly, you ask if the name of the country of manufacture must appea on the safety glass if not manufactured in the United States. The standard does not mandate that the country of manufacturer be marked on the safety glazing materials.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3299OpenMr. Milton M. Singleton, Vice President, Yarbrough Manufacturing Co., Inc., P.O. Box 848, Arlington, Texas 76010; Mr. Milton M. Singleton Vice President Yarbrough Manufacturing Co. Inc. P.O. Box 848 Arlington Texas 76010; Dear Mr. Singleton: This will confirm your telephone conversation of April 23, 1980, wit Mr. Nelson Erickson of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standard concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 - Vehicle identification number.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standard or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2522OpenMr. Arthur Wolinsky, President, Treon Mfg. Corp., 8000 Cooper Avenue, Glendale, NY, 11227; Mr. Arthur Wolinsky President Treon Mfg. Corp. 8000 Cooper Avenue Glendale NY 11227; Dear Mr. Wolinsky: This responds to your February 4, 1977, question whether Standard No 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, applies to materials supplied to the aftermarket for use in vans.; Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket materials o components. As a vehicle standard it applies only to those original components or materials of new vehicles specified in paragraph S4.1 of the standard and installed in a vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. S1397(b)(1)). Therefore, materials that you supply to the final vehicle purchaser are not subject to the requirements of the standard.; I would also note that, with regard to the installation of interio materials in motor vehicles after the first sale for purposes other than resale, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may knowingly render inoperative a device or element of design (such as flame retardant materials) installed in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, although the materials you produce may not always be required to meet the requirements of the standard when sold in the aftermarket, there may be situations in which the materials could not be legally installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business unless they were in compliance with the standard.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2172OpenMr. Frank W. Allen, Assistant General Counsel, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Building, Detroit, Michigan 48202; Mr. Frank W. Allen Assistant General Counsel General Motors Corporation General Motors Building Detroit Michigan 48202; Dear Mr. Allen: This is in response to your letter of December 2, 1975, asking thi agency's opinion as to whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number*, would preempt any differing State law or regulation specifying the content of a vehicle identification number. You asked the question in the context of a vehicle equipment Safety Commission action recommending such a regulation to the States.; Standard No. 115 requires a vehicle identification that is unique to manufacturer during any ten-year period. It does not specify the length or the content of the number. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standard on vehicle identification numbers was intended generally to cover all aspects of those numbers, and preempt any differing State rules, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in *Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger*, No. CIV S74-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is 'whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field.' Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as *Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and *Chrysler v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is 'of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'; The NHTSA has determined that the safety standard on vehicl identification numbers, No. 115, is intended to cover all aspects of vehicle identification numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applies, and that any aspects for which there are no specific requirements were intended by this agency to be left to the discretion of the manufacturers. State regulations differing from the Federal standard on this subject are found to 'impair the federal superintendence of the field,' within the meaning of the *Florida Lime* doctrine, and any such State regulation would be preempted under section 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2488OpenMr. D. J. Henry, Executive Vice President, Meyer Products, Inc., 18513 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44112; Mr. D. J. Henry Executive Vice President Meyer Products Inc. 18513 Euclid Avenue Cleveland OH 44112; Dear Mr. Henry: This is in response to your November 16, 1976, letter concerning th removal of snow plow assemblies prior to testing motor vehicles for conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*.; You have pointed out that a snow plow assembly includes component other than the part that actually contacts and moves the snow. You have requested confirmation of your interpretation that 'no part of the snow plow assembly, including the mounting components, was to be attached to a vehicle for purposes of [compliance testing] ...'; That interpretation is incorrect. The presence or absence of snow plo components on a vehicle during compliance testing depends on whether the components are included in the vehicle's 'unloaded vehicle weight'. As the July 16, 1976, letter from Mr. Robert Carter of this agency to the Jeep Corporation indicates, unloaded vehicle weight includes the weight of accessories that are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. The statement in that letter that 'snow plows' would be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing can be amplified as follows: 1) A snow plow, i.e., the component of a snow plow assembly that actually contacts and moves the snow, will be removed. 2) Those other components of a snow plow assembly that, like the snow plow itself, are ordinarily removed when not in use will also be removed. 3) Those components which are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when not in use will not be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing. The agency will abide by a manufacturer's good faith categorization of accessories and components of accessories.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1477OpenMr. Edward A. Green, President Henke Manufacturing Corporation, Janesville, IA 50647; Mr. Edward A. Green President Henke Manufacturing Corporation Janesville IA 50647; Dear Mr. Green: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1974, asking severa questions regarding the sale of snow plows and related equipment and their installation on vehicles. Your questions are restated below, followed by our responses:; 1. Question A: 'When we sell a plow, lift frame, lights and brackets t a dealer, do we have to report to you what dealers we sold light kits. Lights meet the code. Yes or no.'; No. The sale of lighting equipment to a dealer, without any concurren installation on a vehicle, does not give rise to any reporting or other requirements.; Question B: 'When we receive an order for a snow plow and no light ki is ordered, what is our responsibility in this case: We assume the dealer furnishes his own light kit.'; As long as you do not install the plow no requirements apply. 2. 'We mount a lift frame for a county or city and they want to moun their own lights. We instruct them that lights are mandatory before they affix the plow. The lift frame only does not affect the present requirement for lights. Are we violating the law and what must we do?; The addition of a lift frame to a completed vehicle (to which 'readily-attachable' plow will later be added) would make you a vehicle alterer and subject to section 567.8 of the Certification regulations. The alterer label should take into account the weight of a plow. As lights may be considered to be readily attachable, you may deliver the vehicle to the county without the additional lights. The county must install them, however, and you should obtain written assurance that it will do so. If the lights were not installed by the user, you would be responsible for a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)). Your certification as an alterer would also be invalid, as the altered vehicle would not conform to all applicable standards.; 3. 'Henke receives a truck with a dump box and no certification labe and nothing noted on incomplete registration. We certified the truck and informed the county that they should get the dealer mounting the box to put an addendum to the incomplete vehicle form to the effect that he mounted the box. Is this correct?; Yes, if in fact the vehicle conforms to applicable standards, and it weight ratings are correct, no, if it does not conform or its weight ratings are not correct. In completing and certifying a vehicle without complete documentation required under Part 568, you run the risk of having no 'due care' defense to a finding of nonconformity.; 'Henke receives a truck that has a final certification. We mount lif frame, wing and front hydraulic power system. The county wants to mount their own lights. Do we have to put on an addendum sticker? We warn them regarding light requirements when plow is mounted.'; Section 577.7 (sic) of the Certification regulations requires a alterer label when non- readily-attachable components, or any components whose installation modifies the stated weight ratings, are installed. We assume the equipment you mount in this case falls within one if not both of these categories, and an alterer label is therefore required. Your failure to install lights has the same effect here as in our answer to question 2.; 5. 'We receive a truck with a box capacity when loaded with sand whic is more than the GVWR rating and we mount snow plow lift frame and wing. We instruct the customer to mount the plow and wing and add their normal ballast and take the truck to a scale and trim the load not to exceed the axle ratings as stated on the certification label. Our equipment does not overload any axle. Do we have any further liability in regard to the overloading of axles?'; As a vehicle alterer, you are required to recertify the vehicle, an modify its weight ratings if necessary, following the alterations you perform. The gross vehicle weight rating you establish must be based on the vehicle's rated cargo load. Normally, manufacturers are not required to determine what specific loads a vehicle they certify may carry, and are certainly not responsible for overloading by users. However, where the manufacturer (or alterer as the case may be) actually knows that a vehicle he certified is being purchased to carry primarily a particular commodity, the rated cargo load on which he bases his ratings should not be less than what he can reasonably expect the user to consider a 'full load' of that commodity. If he knows that a normal full load of sand, for example, to be carried in that truck will weigh 5 tons, we would consider it false and misleading to rate the cargo load at 4 tons to avoid having to use heavier-duty running gear. In the example you describe, the answer would depend on what you (the manufacturer) know, or can reasonably be expected to know, about how the plow trucks are likely to be loaded. A warning to the buyer not to exceed the rated cargo load or the weight ratings, in that case, would not be sufficient if it were reasonable to expect that the vehicles would, in practice, exceed these ratings at normal full load despite the warning.; With respect to your request for a code number, no final requirement have been issued on this matter, and no number is presently required.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4675OpenThe Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino U. S. House of Representatives 2332 Rayburn Building Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino U. S. House of Representatives 2332 Rayburn Building Washington D.C. 20515; "Dear Mr. Lagomarsino: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinne on behalf of your constituent, Mike Dunn. You inquired about a school bus passenger restraining device marketed by Mr. Dunn. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received an inquiry concerning a similar device in 1988. A copy of our responses, which detail the requirements applicable to such a device, are enclosed. I will summarize those requirements below. The device being marketed by your constituent, a 'safety bar' for school bus passengers, consists of a padded metal bar which is attached to the seat back of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the safety bar. The bar is hinged to swing up to allow entry and exit of the occupants. The hinge mechanism also allows the bar to drop slightly from its lowered position upon impact in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of abdominal injury. The device operates much like the passenger restraint bars found on certain amusement park rides. As explained by the enclosed letters, federal law does not prohibit the installation of your constituent's product on school buses as long its installation and use would not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the safety bars are to be installed in any new school bus, the manufacturer of the bus would have to certify that the bus with the safety bars installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.222). As the enclosed letters explain, the use of the safety bar would not obviate the need for a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). That standard requires that such vehicles be equipped with either safety belts or automatic restraints at all passenger seating positions. In addition, as explained in the enclosed letters and information sheet, the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1027OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., Suite 406, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. David J. Humphreys Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. Suite 406 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of February 2, 1973, in which you as whether a vehicle designed to provide living accommodations for persons, but also designed to carry more than 10 persons, will be considered a motor home (a multipurpose passenger vehicle) or a bus under the motor vehicle safety standards. You question arises in the context of whether such a vehicle must comply with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.; Based on the definitions of these vehicle types in Part 571 of Titl 49, Code of Federal Regulations, we would consider this vehicle to be a bus. A multipurpose passenger vehicle, in which category a motor home falls (49 CFR 571.205), is limited to being designed to carry 10 persons or less. As the vehicle in question is designed to carry more than 10 persons, it must, under these definitions, be considered a bus.; Moreover, we do not believe there is a legitimate basis to exempt thi vehicle from Standard No. 217. That standard is intended to require vehicles designed to carry more than 10 persons to have specific provisions for the emergency escape of passengers. This purpose is not offset in cases where the vehicle simultaneously provides living accommodations.; We believe this conclusion to be consistent with the exemption provide in Standard 217 for limousines and station wagons. These vehicles, which like the vehicle in question are ordinarily vehicle types other than buses, are exempt because sufficient means of emergency escape are otherwise available. There is no indication that such is the case in the vehicle which is the subject of your letter.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4225OpenThe Honorable Douglas Applegate, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Douglas Applegate U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Applegate: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from you constituent, Mr. Thomas Ash of East Liverpool, who asked about our school bus definition. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.; Mr. Ash explained in his letter to you that Ohio considers vehicle carrying 10 or more student passengers as school buses. He stated that because a vehicle carrying 9 or fewer passengers is not a 'school bus' under state law, it may be operated by staff members and advisors who do not have the special qualifications required by the state for school bus drivers. Since the East Liverpool Board of Education would like to use 15-passenger vans operated by those staff members and advisors to carry school children to school related events, it is interested in changing Ohio's definition of a school bus to exclude such vans. Because the state definition of a school bus adopts the Federal definition of that term, Mr. Ash asks us to explain the reasons for our school bus definition.; The definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. I accordance with Congress's mandate in the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Admendment (sic) of 1974, NHTSA has issued safety standards for all new school buses. In the Act, Congress mandated that the safety standards apply to all school buses that are designed to carry more than 10 passengers to ensure that all vehicles likely to be significantly used for student transportation would be subject to comprehensive safety standards.; The East Liverpool City Schools can purchase new 15-passenger vans conforming to our standards, for use in transporting its pupils to school-related events. however, under the Act and our safety standards, a dealer selling a new 15-passenger van to a school district for the purpose of carrying children to and from school or on school-related trips, must ensure that the vehicle conforms to all of our school bus safety standards.; Our schoolbus safety standards apply only to the manufacture and sal of new schoolbuses and do not regulate issues of vehicle operation such as driver training or qualifications. The authority to govern the operation of vehicles rests with the State. NHTSA has issued guidelines to the States to assist them in setting up their own highway safety programs. Ohio's decision to require all drivers of school buses to have special training or a special license is consistent with the recommendations we have issued on pupil transportation safety. Those recommendations are found in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. I want to emphasize that the States are not required to follow our guidelines and can modify them to meet their pupil transportation needs.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed |
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.