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: aiam1019OpenMr. W. S. Magenau, President, Chesapeake Marine Products, Route 456, Deale, MD 20751; Mr. W. S. Magenau President Chesapeake Marine Products Route 456 Deale MD 20751; Dear Mr. Magenau: This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1973, in which yo suggested, with reference to a previous interpretation, that boat trailer assemblers be allowed to use the 'altering distributor' certification of 49 CFR S 567.6, rather than certifying the vehicle as the manufacturer under S 567.4.; The altering distributor label was not designed to deal with assembler of vehicles, but with persons who alter vehicles that have already been completed and assembled. A basic prerequisite to its use is that there be a vehicle that already has been certified. I take it that your suggestion really amounts to requiring the supplier of the unassembled parts to certify the vehicle.; We are unwilling to do this on the basis of our present information. I is true that a boat trailer is among the simplest vehicles on the road, but considering vehicles generally, we must consider a vehicle as a functioning whole, not as a group of parts. There may easily be problems caused by the way in which it is assembled, and we do not consider it reasonable to require a manufacturer of parts, against his will, to take responsibility for the final assembly. Although it is conceivable that such a scheme could work with very simple vehicles, it certainly could cause large problems with more complex ones.; We permit the unassembled parts manufacturer to certify if he wishes Furthermore, the person who assembles the vehicle can require a written commercial warranty that the vehicle will conform if properly assembled, which will protect him in certifying the vehicle. I recommend one of these courses of action as a matter of good business practice.; If the unassembled parts manufacturer does certify the package i accordance with S 567.4(g)(1)(ii), then it would be permissible for a distributor to use S 567.6 where he deviates from the certifier's instructions.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3024OpenMr. Myles Robert Lee, P.O. Box 1344, Gloucester, MA 01930; Mr. Myles Robert Lee P.O. Box 1344 Gloucester MA 01930; Dear Mr. Lee: This responds to your May 12, 1979, letter asking how to determine th correct date of manufacture of your motor home. You indicate that the chassis was constructed in 1977 and the body in 1978. The manufacturer apparently classified the vehicle as a 1978 model.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a regulatio governing the date of manufacture of vehicles for the application of safety standards. Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, of our regulations states that a manufacturer may choose as the date of manufacture of a vehicle the date of manufacture of the chassis, the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle, or any date between those two dates. However, the vehicle must comply with all of the applicable safety standards in effect on the chosen date. Since the body of your vehicle was manufactured in 1978, we assume that the vehicle was completed in 1978. Therefore, the manufacture could legally call your vehicle a 1978 model, at least for the purposes of our safety program.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2265OpenMr. Naoyoshi Suzuki, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Naoyoshi Suzuki Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Suzuki: This responds to your March 15, 1976, question whether a passenger ca is considered a convertible for purposes of compliance with motor vehicle safety standards if its roof includes a 'sun roof' or has two removable sections fitted into the roof over the dashboard front designated seating positions in such a fashion that they do not join each other (Hurst Hatch Roof). You also request confirmation that convertibles are excluded from the requirements of Standard NO. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*, and are required to meet S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*.; The answer to your first question is no. The National Highway Traffi Safety Administration considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Passenger cars equipped with a 'sun roof' or a 'Hurst Hatch Roof' do not qualify as convertibles, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location.; With regard to your other question, passenger cars manufactured fro September 1, 1973, to August 31, 1976, inclusive, are required to meet one of three options specified in Standard No. 208. If a manufacturer chooses to meet the third option listed (S4.1.2.3), separate requirements are specified for convertibles in S4.1.2.3.2. Convertibles are excluded form Standard No. 216, although a manufacturer may choose to meet the standard in place of certain requirements of Standard No. 208 that are not presently mandatory.; Yours truly, Stephen Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0258OpenMr. L. C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. L. C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: The Director has asked me to reply to your letter of September 29 1970, concerning the compliance of certain motor vehicles, which General Motors intends to import, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components.; Each rear door of these vehicles has, in addition to a 'conventional locking mechanism, a special locking mechanism which is described in your letter as:; >>>'an additional lever located on the rear edge of each door which when placed in its 'lock position', will only allow the door to be opened from outside the vehicle even if the conventional locking knob on the upper portion of the door inside the vehicle is in the unlocked position. The additional lever is covered when the door is closed.'<<<; You ask whether the rear doors on these vehicles comply with S4.1.3 o Standard No. 206, which requires that each door 'shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.; A somewhat similar problem was discussed in the preamble to the Apri 27, 1968 amendment (33 F.R. 6465) to the Standard. As stated there, S4.1.3 does not preclude the installation of a special locking mechanism in addition to the required locking mechanism. However, the required locking mechanism must be able to be engaged or disengaged regardless of whether any additional locking mechanism is engaged or disengaged. If the special locking mechanism does not interfere with the operation of the required locking mechanism on the doors in questions, therefore, it will not constitute a failure to comply with the standard.; Please write if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2635OpenMr. Paul F. Bennett, Chief Engineer, Utility Trailer, Manufacturing Co., P.O. Box 1299, City of Industry, CA 91744; Mr. Paul F. Bennett Chief Engineer Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 1299 City of Industry CA 91744; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to your May 20, 1977, letter asking whether your propose certification labels comply with the requirements of Part 567, *Certification*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. We will, however, issue an opinion of whether your labels appear to comply with the regulations. The labels you submitted appear to comply with all but one of the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. On your certification labels, you listed the symbol 'W/' before the rim information. This symbol should be dropped from the label. Further the rim size designation should use the symbol 'x' between the diameter and width. Information supplied on a certification label must be provided in the form detailed in Part 567.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0608OpenMr. Richard F. Hirsch, 762 W. 30 Street, San Pedro, CA 90731; Mr. Richard F. Hirsch 762 W. 30 Street San Pedro CA 90731; Dear Mr. Hirsch: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1972, on the subject o test procedures under Standards 207 and 210.; Your questions deal with the general and frequently asked question o whether a manufacturer may devise his own test procedures to determine compliance with a standard. Our answer is that he is free to use whatever method he thinks appropriate to test his product, so long as his method reliably predicts the performance of the product when tested according to the proce- dures set out in the standard.; In answer to your first question, therefore, if testing of seats in mock up accurately indicates their performance in a vehicle, then mock up testing might be an appropriate test method. Our laboratories will be testing the seats in the vehicle. If a failure occurs, a manufacturer must show that he exercised due care in the development and production of the seat. To do this it will be necessary to show, among other things, that the development tests you conducted were, in fact, equivalent to the test procedures of the standard.; The same comment is appropriate in response to your second question. I you apply force through the seatbelt that approximates the combined forces of the belt anchorage test and seat anchorage test, you should take care to be sure that the test is, in fact, equivalent to a test in which the anchorages are tested simultaneously in the manner specified in Standards 207 and 210.; Your third question is whether the test must be conducted wit seatbelts and body locks, and if so, whether this would not be a redundant test of the seatbelt that is already required to conform to Standard 209. Although the response given to your first two questions is also appropriate for the third, there are practical reasons for using the vehicle's belts in the test. If the belt breaks, for example, it may be that your client would want to re-examine the sufficiency of the belt. Under Standard 208, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a belt that conforms to Standard 209. If the belt fails in our testing under Standard 209, the vehicle manufacturer will have to show that he exercised due care in determining that the belt conformed to the standard. Using the belt in testing for Standard 210 is one way of detecting potentially serious belt problems.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3927OpenMr. R. R. Allison, Assistant Vice President, First American Bank of Virginia, 1970 Chain Bridge Road, McLean, VA 22102; Mr. R. R. Allison Assistant Vice President First American Bank of Virginia 1970 Chain Bridge Road McLean VA 22102; Dear Mr. Allison: This is in response to your letter of March 14, 1985, in which yo asked whether the bank is required to complete the Odometer Mileage Statement form in view of the wording on the Virginia title.; I have reviewed Virginia's Certificate of Title and the odomete mileage disclosure regulation, 49 CFR part 580. The bank should continue to issue its Odometer Mileage Statement when transferring a motor vehicle unless the buyer completely fills out the reverse side of the title, including the application. While the Virginia title meets regulatory requirements concerning the odometer reading, it fails to provide a space for the buyer's address and signature apart from the application. In some instances, a dealer may reassign the title without applying for one in his own name and the above requirements would not be met. The dealer would then be able to assert that he was not informed of the mileage or that the mileage was different from that appearing on the title.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2320OpenMr. David L. Ryan, Chairman, Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority, 201 North Kansas Avenue, Topeka, KS 66603; Mr. David L. Ryan Chairman Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority 201 North Kansas Avenue Topeka KS 66603; Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority's May 17 an 18, 1976, letters asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of school bus or its Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, prevent the utilization of transit buses to transport students to and from school. You ask if a proposed amendment to Kansas statutes would conflict with Federal law or regulation if it exempts transit buses from a requirement that school bus seating be forward-facing.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1392(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 this case, the proposed section 10 appears to be identical to S5.1 of Standard No. 222 insofar as it addresses the direction in which school bus seating must face. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that this portion of the proposed section 10 would therefore not be preempted by Standard No. 222.; The second portion of section 10 provides an exception to th requirement for forward-facing seats, and it is the NHTSA's opinion that the exception is preempted insofar as it might apply to school buses purchased by a metropolitan transit authority after the October 26, 1976, effective date of Standard No. 222.; In the case of transit buses 'designed and sold for operation as common carrier in urban transportation,' however, the exception does not apply to an aspect of performance regulated by a motor vehicle safety standard (i.e., the orientation of seating in transit buses). It would therefore not appear to be preempted by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; The NHTSA recently considered inclusion of transit buses in th definition of 'school bus' but concluded that Congress' intent in broadening the definition of 'school bus' did not address inclusion of transit buses involved in student transportation. I have enclosed a discussion of this issue that accompanied the redefinition of 'school bus.'; As you noted in your letter, Highway Program Safety Standard No. 17 *Pupil Transportation Safety* (23 CFR 1204), provides for the transportation of students in school buses and in transit buses.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2770OpenMr. J. Kawano, 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. J. Kawano 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Kawano: This responds to your January 23, 1978, letter asking whether Safet Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, would be applicable to tempered glass mounted on the outside panel of a vehicle B-pillar' for ornamental purposes.; The answer to your question is no. Since there would be no danger tha vehicle occupants would contact the ornamental glass, it would not have to comply with the performance and location requirements of Standard No. 205. This interpretation assumes, of course, that the glass is used only on the outside panel of a solid B-pillar'. Standard No. 205 would be applicable, for example, if the glass were used in a cut-out section of a B-pillar', such that there was an interface of the glass with the vehicle occupant compartment.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3862OpenHonorable Jim Burnett, Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC 20594; Honorable Jim Burnett Chairman National Transportation Safety Board Washington DC 20594; Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in further response to recommendations H-83-44 and H-83-4 which your agency made to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Highway Accident Report, 'Jonesboro School District Schoolbus Run-Off-Road and Overturn, State Highway 214 at State Highway 18, near Newport, Arkansas, March 25, 1983' (NTSB/HAR-83/03).; NHTSA agrees with the National Transportation Safety Board tha properly inspected and repaired school buses are essential to the safe transportation of school children. We also believe that the current provisions in Highway Safety Program Standard 1, Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection, and Highway Safety Program Standard 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, as well as the relevant Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, provide for an adequate level of safety when children are transported to and from school.; Of the 15,840 school districts in the United States, about 15,00 provide pupil transportation. Over 400,000 buses are involved in transporting the nation's 22 million public, private and parochial school children to and from school each day. These buses are maintained by a number of persons having diverse backgrounds ranging in skill from 'grease monkey' to those certified by the national institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE). This fleet travels over three billion miles a year, and is remarkably free of problems. Information reported at national meetings indicates that accidents due to mechanical failure are estimated to be between three and five percent and very few result in injury or death.; With respect to the specific recommendations, we have the followin comments:; >>>*RECOMMENDATION H-83-44* (Class II, Priority Action) *Include in Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) 17--Pupi Transportation Safety and in the Program Manual' for HSPS 17 the requirement that the States institute quality control procedures for schoolbus repairs to determine if needed repairs have been performed adequately or if major repairs are required.; COMMENT* State Directors of Transportation, school business officials and flee supervisors with whom NHTSA has talked agree that school buses should be kept in good repair. They questioned, however, how quality control procedures could be applied to the repair of school buses when almost every repair is different. Most school buses currently undergo at least two inspections a year, as suggested by Standard 17, which procedure helps to detect major defects that require repair. In addition to this inspection, we understand that most drivers conduct a daily inspection which identifies the need for minor repairs. One supervisor observed that school bus drivers act as a form of practical quality control because they check to determine if the school bus is operating safely after the repair has been made.; A survey of almost 1,000 fleets by the National School Transportatio Association revealed that 49 percent operated fewer than 10 buses. To institute quality control procedures for these small fleets would quickly exhaust the limited resources of most States. Instituting formal quality control procedures would be costly to the States, no matter whether facilities were built and equipment purchased, or alternative checking procedures were utilized.; *Recommendation H-83-45* (Class II, Priority Action) This five part recommendation would include in the Program Manual o Highway Safety Program Standard 17-Pupil Transportation Safety, the program areas listed below.; *1. Specific, well-defined qualifications for hiring schoolbu mechanics,; 2. Specific skill areas for schoolbus mechanics for which certificatio of proficiency is required,; 3. A bibliography of available courses that can be attended or cours curricula that can be used as an example to obtain certification of proficiency in the required skill areas, *Comment*; NHTSA plans to use a portion of staff resources to review th literature that pertains to school bus mechanic qualifications and skill areas needed for certification. Upon completion we will disseminate the appropriate information to State and local governments.; Many schools, colleges and vocational training centers offer variou courses in auto-mechanics, but few people ever master all the major areas of vehicle repair and become master-mechanics. The majority of small fleet operators could not afford to hire such a skilled mechanic. Car dealers employ many skilled mechanics but many are neither equipped nor do they desire to repair school buses. It is highly unlikely that owners of small fleets would or could hire an ASE certified mechanic. It is also unlikely that most of the garages or service stations that maintain school buses have such a person in their employ because they are small independent private entrepreneures (sic). The extreme diversity of the school bus fleet in the United States would be a major complication for a practical certification program.; In 1978, hearings were held by the House Subcommittee on Consume Protection and Finance, of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to examine State and local as well as private sector approaches to the problem of unnecessary, incompetent, or fraudulent repair practices. Senator Philip Hart also held hearings in the late 1960s on Mechanic Training and Licensing. In spite of the adverse findings by these two committees, neither the Federal Government nor any State has gone so far as to require certification of mechanics doing work on cars or school buses. Because of the complexity of this problem, and the lack of Congressional action, NHTSA is of the opinion that it cannot go beyond publishing qualifications for school bus mechanics and identifying available training centers.; States whose accident records show the need for better maintenance car can be expected to take remedial action. Michigan, for example, provided workshops especially designed for school bus mechanics for over 10 years.; *4. A requirement to institute and enforce procedures to prevent schoo activity groups from organizing, beginning, or continuing trips in mechanically unsafe vehicles,; Comment* A requirement to institute and enforce procedures to prevent schoo activity groups from organizing, beginning or continuing trips in mechanically unsafe vehicles is commendable. Such a requirement, however, would be effective only if it were enforced. Standard 17 currently suggests pre-trip inspections and a written report of any defect or deficiency discovered. We believe a reminder to the States of this suggestion would encourage them to give the proper attention to this safety area.; *5. Requirements to place fire extinguishers at the front and rear o school buses, post signs in school buses on the location and use of emergency equipment, and brief passengers on the location and use of emergency equipment, both periodically and before beginning activity trips.; Comment* The placement of additional fire extinguishers outside the bus driver' compartment has led to increased theft and vandalism. These essential pieces of emergency equipment need to remain under the watchful eyes of the bus driver. The benefits of placing a second fire extinguisher in the rear of the school bus are so few as to make this requirement unwarranted. In case of a fire, a bus driver's first responsibility is to get the pupils to a place of safety. Having the personal skill and the equipment to handle a small fire are helpful, but not a necessity.; NHTSA suggests that all pupils who ride school buses should hav instruction twice a year in safe riding procedures and emergency drills. This should provide sufficient information to students concerning the location and use of emergency equipment carried on the school bus. The location and use of fire extinguishers should be a part of this instruction.; Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these safet recommendations. If NHTSA can supply any additional information, please let me know.; |
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.