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: 77-4.38OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/17/77 FROM: HOWARD DUGOFF FOR JOAN CLAYBROOK -- NHTSA TO: Charles Wilson; House of Representatives TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your October 19, 1977, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. M. M. Davis, concerning the remanufacture of school buses. The manufacture that Mr. Davis proposes to undertake would mount an old school bus body on a new school bus chassis. The regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that Mr. Davis enclosed in his letter explicitly state that the use of a new chassis in the remanufacture of a motor vehicle results in the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Such motor vehicle would be required to comply with all safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis or final manufacture of the vehicle or any time between those two dates. In the case of a remanufactured school bus using a chassis manufactured after April 1, 1977, the bus would be required to comply with all of the Congressionally mandated school bus regulations that became effective on April 1. Congress of the United States House of Representatives October 19, 1977 Joan Claybrook Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mr. M. M. Davis, Superintendent of the Newton Independent School District in Texas, in which he describes a problem regarding the rebuilding of their school buses. I would appreciate your examination of the situation to see if the buses in question may be overhauled, as planned, in the Texas Department of Correction and still meet the Federal Safety Standards. Please advise me of your decision. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Charles Wilson cc: M. M. DAVIS NEWTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT October 10, 1977 Hon. Charles Wilson I am enclosing a copy of the Highway Standard that Mr. Corbell of the State Board of Control and Mr. Biel of Texas Department of Corrections says will keep our Public Schools in Texas from buying new School Bus Chassis and having our old bus bodies rebuilt at Texas Department of Correction which would save from $ 1000 to $ 3500 on each bus. We have five buses in the Prison System Bus Repair Facility now to rebuild bodies to be remounted on new chassis. This would save us $ 5000 to $ 15,000 on these five buses. M. M. Davis, Supt. Newton ISD (Graphics omitted) GA-9502 GLIDER NOTE: Frame and Cab height dimensions shown are with std. tires. DIMENSIONS IN INCHES FOR SINGLE AND TANDEM REAR AXLE APPLICATIONS Cab Maximum CE Typical Maximum Series WB All OL 54 in. 74 in. 86 in. For Applications Std. Cab Cab Reference Only GA9732 255 201 181 169 165 GA9782 308 254 234 222 195 To determine max. AF for physical limitation with 36 inch upper kingpin setting and 5 inch corner deduct 62 inches from effective CA. Additional dimensional restructions of up 46 inches behind the cab for engine transmission (non-sleeper cab only) or up to 14 inches behind the cab for exhaust, air intake or oil filter (sleeper or non-sleeper) must be considered when determining effective CA. |
|
ID: 77-4.39OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/17/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA TO: Ford Garage Company Inc. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your September 27, 1977, letter asking whether a 15 passenger vehicle designed to transport children to and from a Y.M.C.A. recreation facility would be required to comply with the new Federal school bus safety standards. The Federal school bus safety standards promulgated under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) apply to motor vehicles transporting 10 or more passengers to and from school or related events. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has tentatively concluded that facilities such as Y.M.C.A.s may not have been aware that school bus safety standards might be applicable to vehicles manufactured to transport children to and from these facilities. Accordingly, the agency has temporarily exempted from the requirements buses designed for use by such facilities. You should note that the NHTSA plans to commence rulemaking that might require buses used for activities such as those described to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. The extended application of the standards would only affect buses manufactured after the effective date of the rulemaking action. SINCERELY, Ford Garage Company, Inc. September 27, 1977 Joseph Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Our local Y.M.C.A. is seeking a multiple passenger vehicle to transport underpriviledged and other children between the ages of 5 and 18 from outlying areas to their center during the winter months and to their day-camp during July and August. There is, of course, no charge for this service. TThe purpose is to make Y.M.C.A. recreation facilities available to children who would not otherwise have an opportunity to use them. Pick-up points would be at various schools during the school year and central neighborhood stops on Saturdays and during July and August. It appears that the most logical unit for their use from the standpoint of size and expense would be a 15 passenger Dodge Sportsman Maxiwagon. The question arises, however, as to whether or not this type unit meets all Federal and State requirements. I am therefore enclosing a copy of the invoice on the unit we propose and will appreciate your early reply. Charles W. Jarvis Secretary |
|
ID: 77-4.4OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/26/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Holiday Rambler Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your June 1, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Federal safety standards to travel trailers and motor homes. You first ask whether bed sheets and decorative bedspreads shipped with a motor home are required to meet Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. The items required to meet the standard are listed in S4.1 of the standard. That list does not include sheets or bedspreads. Therefore, they are not required to comply with the standard. In a related question pertaining to Standard No. 302, you ask whether "mattress cover" as that term is used in the standard refers to the permanent mattress ticking or to a removable mattress cover. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the standard applies to both the permanent ticking and the removable cover. Therefore, both must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302. In a question pertaining to Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, you ask whether it is permissible to label a bench seat "not for occupancy while vehicle is in motion" on one label or whether a seat must be labeled at each seating position. Standard No. 207 requires only one label for a bench seat in a motor home. You should note that Standard No. 207 does not apply to travel trailers. You ask whether the NHTSA has jurisdiction over safety-related defects in motor homes not covered by safety standards. The agency has general defect jurisdiction granted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) for all safety-related motor vehicle defects. The NHTSA's defect jurisdiction also extends to the nonoperational safety of a vehicle. In a final question you ask whether the agency has jurisdiction over travel trailers. The NHTSA has jurisdiction over "any motor vehicle" which is defined in the Act as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power . . ." Therefore, the NHTSA has jurisdiction over travel trailers that is identical to its jurisdiction over any other motor vehicle. SINCERELY, JUNE 1, 1977 Joseph Levin National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Holiday Rambler Corporation is a manufacturer of Recreational Vehicles including motor homes and travel trailers. We would like a ruling on items one through four listed below and information on item five: 1. Are bed sheets and decorative bedspreads sold and shipped in a motor home required to meet the standards of FMVSS 302? 2. In reference to FMVSS 302 define mattress cover is it: a. The permanently installed cover or ticking which incapsulates the foam or other interior stuffing, or b. Is it a removable outer covering that is intended specifically to protect the mattress itself from soil stain etc., which can be installed and removed for cleaning by the consumer? 3. When labeling a bench type seat "not for occupancy while vehicle is in motion" according to FMVSS 207 - S4.4, is one label sufficient or is it necessary to place labels 18" O.C. at each possible seating position? 4. Do those safety related defects in motor homes not covered by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard fall under the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? If the defect applies or occurs only in the camping mode, does NHTSA have jurisdiction? 5. Does NHTSA have jurisdiction over travel trailers and if so, to what extent? Charles E. Klatt, Senior Director Codes, Legalities, Testing & Training Memorandum SUBJECT: Telephone Converstation DATE: Sept 30, 1977 In reply refer to: FROM: Safety Standards Engineer Office of Crashworthiness THRU: AA, MVP TO: Dockets 74-14, 2-14, & 2-12 On Sept 30, I called Mr. Premo of Sheller Globe Corp. Discussion Mr. Premo had called the day before and asked for information about attendant seats in an ambulance. On Sept 30 we discussed the requirements & Stds 207, 208, and 210 as they applied to ambulances. I told Mr. Premo that, since the attendant seats were designated seating positions, his company had to comply with the requirements of (Illegible Word) three standards. W. SMITH |
|
ID: 77-4.40OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/23/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA TO: Alabama Department of Education TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your October 7, 1977, letter to and conversation with Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus standards to college buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that colleges do not fall within the ambit of the school bus regulations. I am enclosing a copy of a previous letter on this issue. Accordingly, seat spacing in buses used to transport college students can be determined by the particular state in which the bus will be operated. Your problem appears to be somewhat more complex than the above description, however, since you require the college bus to be painted yellow, have flashing lights, and be labeled "school bus." It is unlikely that any manufacturers will sell you a bus marked and painted as a school bus that does not comply with the Federal school bus requirements. Were they to do this, it would subject them to liability if the bus were misused to transport school children, which from all outward appearances it would be designed to do. We suggest that you label the bus with the name of the college or other institution and drop the "school bus" designation. This would permit manufacturers to supply the bus without fear of violating Federal requirements. SINCERELY, U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway, Traffic Safety Adm. The State of Alabama operates buses to transport students to past secondary schools that operate separate and apart from the "primary, preprimary and secondary schools". There is a great need for these buses to have a seat spacing greater than the requirement in FMVSS 222. Any assistance in getting this seat spacing relayed for past secondary will be greatly appreciated. Norman N Lopez State Coordinator of Pupil Transportation Alabama Department of Eduction |
|
ID: 77-4.41OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/29/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA TO: General Motors Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1977, to Ms. Joan Claybrook, requesting an interpretation of whether the release action of your "c-ring" seat belt latch mechanism qualifies as a push button action as specified in paragraph S7.2(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your efforts to improve the comfort and convenience of belt systems thereby increasing the likelihood that they will be used is to be commended. I must point out, however, that the primary purpose of the requirement in paragraph S7.2(c) is to standardize the release method of all seat belts. This reduces the likelihood that occupants will become confused as to how to release a belt in a strange car or in an emergency situation. We have reviewed the operation of your "c-ring" and conclude that the action necessary to release the mechanism does not constitute push botton action. However, incorporation of a push botton release, similar to the design being used in Saab automobiles, would bring your "c-ring" into conformance with S7.2(c) and permit its use. |
|
ID: 77-4.42OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/30/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your September 26, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, to rims modified subsequent to their initial marking by the rim manufacturer. Standard No. 120, as it applies to rim manufacturers, requires only that the manufacturer mark the rim with the information outlined in section S5.2 of the standard. The standard does not contain substantive performance requirements for tire rims that would necessitate extensive testing to comply with the requirements. In cases where your client modifies previously marked rims, he might have some responsibilities for compliance with the standard. For those rims where the center disc is only added or altered by your client, there would be no requirement for him to provide his own markings on the tire rim. The rim manufacturer's markings would still contain the accurate size information. For rims that your client modifies by the insertion of a steel plate increasing the dimensions of the rim, he becomes the rim manufacturer. As a rim manufacturer, it is his responsibility to mark the rim with the information listed and in the manner prescribed in S5.2 of the standard. This information includes the DOT symbol which indicates that he has complied with the requirements of Standard No. 120. Since the rim would have been marked initially with a different size, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would require that the first markings be removed from the rim to avoid the possibility of confusion to persons who might read the incorrect size listing. This could result in the mismatching of a tire to the modified rim. In a conversation between Ms. Maryanne Kane of your office and Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff, it was asked whether the NHTSA Standard No. 120 requirements would be applicable to rims manufactured entirely for off-road use. The NHTSA regulates only motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. By definition a motor vehicle is a vehicle used on the roads. Accordingly, vehicles designed for off-road use do not fall within the ambit of our regulations. The same is true for equipment designed for use on those off-road vehicles. The determination of whether a vehicle is an off-road vehicle depends upon its use. I have enclosed an interpretive letter that describes the criteria for determining what vehicles are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) (the Act). You should note further that my time your client undertakes an alteration of a rim, he is performing a manufacturing function that places him within the scope of the Act. Therefore, he would be responsible for any safety-related defects resulting from his manufacturing processes. SINCERELY, AKIN, GUMP, HAUER & FELD September 26, 1977 Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration Re: Request for Interpretation In accord with our recent conversation this letter will set forth our request for an interpretation of the application of 49 C.F.R. 571.120, Standard No. 120 (tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars) to certain processes used by our client, Southwest Wheel Manufacturing Company, whereby the rims and wheels of other manufacturers are altered or modified by Southwest Wheel to conform to certain customer requirements. I have enclosed a rough diagram of these changes to accompany the written explanation of each special application used by Southwest Wheel. Special Application No. 1 (Diagram Nos. 1, 3 and 4) Diagram Nos. 1, 3 and 4 show a Goodyear rim in four different widths and three different diameters. Depending upon the application, Southwest Wheel adds the center disc to these Goodyear rims. The disc can be installed either as a formed disc manufactured by another company or a flat plate centered disc manufactured by Southwest Wheel. The disc can be located anywhere in the flat portion of the rim base. Placement of the center disc is determined by customer specifications for clearance or tracking or towing vehicles. Special Application No. 2 (Diagram No. 2) Diagram No. 2 shows a process of splitting the rim and adding two inches to obtain additional width in the rim. This process is normally used for light vehicles, either pick-up trucks or trailers. As shown, the rims are split and Southwest Wheel adds additional rolled material to make the rim wider in order to accomodate special floatation tires used primarily in sand or in swamps. Although these are designed for off-road use, they are used on the highway in going to and from job sites. This process can also be combined with the Special Application No. 1 above, whereby the disc is added to the rims as shown in diagram numbers 1, 3 and 4. Special Application No. 3 (Diagram No. 6) As seen from Diagram No. 6, Southwest Wheel may, on special order, cut the center disc from the rim base on lathes, move the center discs either in or out on the rim base to increase or decrease the wheel offset and then reweld to complete the process. Again, this is a special order process and done to customer specifications. Special Application No. 4 (Diagram No. 5) Southwest Wheel purchases rims of the type shown in Diagram No. 5 from other manufacturers, and then installs the center disc to customer's hub application. Even though a wheel may be manufactured by one of the major wheel manufacturers, they do not make a wheel in either the diameter, the width, or both, that the trailer manufacturer wants to use on his equipment. Southwest Wheel then assembles the rim and the disc to its customer specifications.
Special Application No. 5 (Diagram No. 5, Pictures Nos. 10, 11, 12) Southwest Wheel manufacturers special wide-based wheels from rims shown on Diagram No. 5, such as taking two rims size 15 x 10 LBH, splitting them as shown in Picture No. 10, taking two wide sides, and welding them back together both inside and outside as shown in Picture No. 11. After this process, the center disc is then installed as illustrated in Picture No. 12. Thus, Southwest Wheel started out with two rims 10 inches wide and has coverted this product into one rim 13.75 inches wide with the center disc installed, changing the original 15 x 10 LBH rims to a wheel 15 x 13.75 LBH 8-holes 6 1/2 bolt circle. I would be pleased to meet with you and discuss further any of the above processes and I would, of course, obtain any additional information you might require. Your earliest consideration is appreciated. Jay D. Zeiler |
|
ID: 77-4.43OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/01/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your telephone conversation of November 9, 1977, with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the tire performance standard (Standard No. 109. New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars) to temporary-use spare tires. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has permitted the manufacture of temporary-use spare tires because they are smaller than regular spare tires and thus when carried in the automobile reduce its overall weight. A reduction in motor vehicle weight can result in increased fuel efficiency of the vehicle. These tires must comply with all of the safety requirements applicable to passenger car tires. |
|
ID: 77-4.44OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/01/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA TO: Texas Automobile Dealers Association TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your October 5, 1977, letter requesting a further clarification of our interpretation given to you on September 1, 1977, concerning "kit cars." You ask whether there is a requirement to certify the vehicle if it is manufactured using an old chassis. As we stated to you in our first letter, the assembly of such a vehicle is not the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The certification requirements of Part 567 of our regulations apply only to new motor vehicles or the alteration of previously certified vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale. Since your remanufacturing operation constitutes neither the manufacture of a new motor vehicle nor the alteration of a previously certified vehicle, your vehicle would not be required to be certified. |
|
ID: 77-4.45OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/02/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA TO: Glen English; House of Representatives TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This confirms the conversation between Judy Dutterer of your staff and Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the new Federal school bus regulations to activity buses. The Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) defined school bus to include buses used to transport children to and from school and related events. In the legislative history of those amendments, Congress clearly indicated that all buses used to transport school children to and from events related to school should be covered by the new school bus safety standards. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires that all activity buses designed to transport school children to and from such events comply with the new standards. You should note that we have initiated rulemaking, in response to a petition, to examine the issue of whether activity buses should have different requirements applicable to them since they are frequently involved in long distance student transportation. Any action on that issue will be published in the Federal Register. |
|
ID: 77-4.46OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/05/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Rocky Mountain Bandag TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your October 19, 1977, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has regulations that prohibit the use of retreaded tires on steering axles. The NHTSA has performance regulations applicable to retreaded passenger car tires. The agency does not regulate the use of retreaded tires that meet those performance requirements. You should note that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 393.75(d)) that prohibit the use of retreaded tires on the front wheels of buses under their jurisdiction. They do not prohibit the use of such retreaded tires on the steering axle of trucks, however. SINCERELY, ROCKY MOUNTAIN bandag October 19, 1977 Director U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration We are in the business of cold process retreading truck tires. Quite frequently, truck owners tell us there's a D.O.T. regulation that says retreaded tires cannot be used on steering axles. To our knowledge, there is no such regulation. If we're correct, would you please send a letter that says there is no D.O.T. regulation that disallows use of retreads on the steering axle? William H. Loughran President |
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.