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: nht81-1.23OpenDATE: 03/03/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: T. J. Welding Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: MAR 3 1981 NOA-30 Miss M. J. Riddle T. J. Welding Ltd. Box 98 Mount Albert, Ontario LOG 1M0 Dear Miss Riddle: In response to your recent letter, to Mr. Schwartz of my office, I have enclosed a copy of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and two recent amendments. The Canadian authority for the issuance of the three or six character manufacturer identifier is: MVMA of Canada Suite 1602 25 Adelide Street E. Toronto, Ontario M5C-1Y7 ATT: Mr. Brian Hickey Phone: 416-364-9333 Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures January 22, 1981
Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Jr. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A. Dear Sir: Your name has been given to us by Transport Canada - Surface concerning obtaining further details on your standard for a seventeen digit vehicle identification number, standard FMVSS 115. Any information you can supply us with concerning this, will be appreciated. Sincerely, Miss M. J. Riddle T. J. Welding Ltd. |
|
ID: nht91-7.37OpenDATE: December 9, 1991 FROM: Hanno Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.; Olaf Schmidt -- Hella KG Hueck & Co. TO: Richard L. van Iderstine -- NHTSA TITLE: Definition of 2 or 4 Headlamp System ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Herrn. Westermann u. Schmidt (A39; Std. 108) TEXT: Since the great revision of FMVSS No. 108 by Docket 85-15, Notice 12 of February 8, 1990, we are missing a paragraph clarifying the definition of a 2 or 4 headlamp system respectively. In the former version of 108, this definition was done under para. S4.1.1.36, but today there only remains figure 26, which explains the application of photometric requirements with respect to the bulb or bulb combination used. We assume that no changes to the sense of 108 have been made for this matter so that our remarks could be added to FMVSS 108 by short term to avoid the current discrepancies between headlamp manufacturers and the test laboratories. Attached you will find a sketch representing our understanding of the definition of a 2 or 4 lamp system, deriving from the former 108. Many thanks for your endeavours in this and A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Attachment Drawings of Replaceable Bulb Headlamp Systems. (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: nht94-2.49OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: April 19, 1994 FROM: S. Greiff -- PARS, Passive Ruckhaltesysteme GmbH TO: Chief Counsel -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To S. Greiff (A42; Std. 208) TEXT: Per Fax: 001/202-366-3820 Your "Laboratory Test Procedure For FMVSS 208/212/219/301" Gentleman: PARS is a company developing occupant restraint systems for the world wide automotive industry. One of our major topics is the development of airbag systems. For development and validation of the restraint systems we own a Barrier Impact Test Facility which was built up in 1993 new. Our runway is 80 m (260 feet's) long. The velocity tolerance up to 60 kph is +/- 0.1 kph. In your Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS testing, a minimum runway length of 500 feet is requested. We would like to ask you for an interpretation of your "500 feet requirement". It would be much appreciated, if we could get an answer by fax. Our fax no. is: 01149/6023/942-133 Thank you very much for your efforts in advance. Sincerely yours |
|
ID: nht89-3.38OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: November 14, 1989 FROM: Vaughn Crawley -- Vice President, Monitor Manufacturing Co. TO: Steven Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-15-90 to V. Crawley from P. J. Rice; (A36; VSA 108(b)(2) TEXT: I am writing at the recommendation of Marvin Shaw of your Department, to whom I was referred by Mr. Jettner of the Crash Worthiness Engineering Branch of DOT. My question is, that if necessary to respond to a certification review of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in order to support certification that the vehicles meet the requirements of FMVSS #207, Seating System and #210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; would test reports and engineering analysis of the individual components of the seating system tested independently, one from the other, meet the require ments of the law? For instance, in a van conversion, if the pedestal, the seat , and the seat belts are supplied by different manufacturers and have been tested and supported by test reports and engineering analysis to conform to the requirements of FMVSS #207 and #210. Would these documents be adequate as a basis of certification of the seating system, or would the components have to be combined together and re-tested in order to comply with the request for certification. Your prompt response would be appreciated. |
|
ID: nht78-1.10OpenDATE: 12/05/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Yankee Metal Products Corp. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 18, 1978, requesting a clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concurs in your interpretation of S5.3.1 that any hand operated control which is mounted on the steering column does not have to meet the illumination requirements of Column 4 of Table 1. Sincerely, ATTACH. September 18, 1978 KATHLENE DEMETER -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA/DOT Dear Ms. DeMeter: I have been referred to your office for clarification of paragraph 5.3.1 on page 27543, of FMVSS No. 101 -- Controls and Displays; Docket No. 1-18; notice 13; part 571. It is my interpretation of the first sentence of the above paragraph that a hand operated steering column mounted control does not have to comply with the illumination requirements of Column 4 of Table 1. It is imperative that we receive your written reply to this interpretation as soon as possible, since it could affect the design of a turn signal/hazard warning switch which we are about to release for production. Thank you very much. Sincerely, YANKEE METAL PRODUCTS; Walter J. Kulpa |
|
ID: nht94-4.95OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 6, 1994 FROM: David O'Neil -- Manager, Product Development, Hehr International Inc. TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: FMVSS 205 requirements for glass - plastic side windows installed on transit buses. ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/14/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO DAVID O'NEIL (A43; STD. 205) TEXT: Hehr International has received a contract to supply 196 bus sets of windows to Neoplan USA Corporation. The buses will enter service with the Los Angeles County MTA. The passenger and driver side window glazing will be a glass - plastic composite consisting of 1/4 inch tempered glass with DuPont Spallshield 307 laminated to the interior surface. Hehr requests your interpretation of FMVSS 205 with respect to the following: 1) Certification and Marking - Must the glazing be certified and marked as Item 15B/16B or is it possible to certify and mark the glazing as Item 2/3? 2) Cleaning Instructions - Does a label containing all required instructions which is taped to the glazing satisfy the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2.10? Production is scheduled to begin by March 1995. We would appreciate receiving your response prior to that time. If you have any questions regarding this request, I may be reached at (213) 663-1261. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. |
|
ID: nht95-4.46OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 4, 1995 FROM: Donald B. Karner -- Electric Transportation Applications TO: Mary Versailles -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 1/24/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Donald B. Karner (A44; Part 567; Part 571.3) TEXT: Electric Transportation Applications has been contracted to conduct electric vehicle performance testing. During our listing, we encountered an issue concerning FMVSS Certification of a converted vehicle. Mr. Jude Clark of our staff spoke with you last week, and understood that your office was willing to provide NHTSA's opinion on this issue. We are writing to obtain this opinion. Our questions center on changes made to a vehicle's seating capacity: 1. When a converter recertifies a vehicle with fewer designated seating positions than the number specified on the Original Equipment Manufacturer's (OEM) FMVSS Certification label, what actions must the converter take to prevent the seat from being occ upied? 2. Must the payload of the vehicle (GVWR less curb weight) be greater than the number of certified seating positions times 150 pounds (or some other number representing the weight of a typical passenger)? 3. What vehicle options, if any, must be considered in determinate of the curb weight used in question 2? Thank you for your help in this matter. We are looking forward to your reply. |
|
ID: nht95-4.61OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 17, 1995 FROM: Jim Young -- Wheeled Coach TO: John Womack TITLE: FMVSS Compliance ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/17/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Jim Young (A43; Std. 108) TEXT: Wheeled Coach is an Ambulance manufacturer and is in need of a response to the following issues regarding customer specifications for options incorporated into, or in addition to FMVSS lighting. "Brake override circuit for rear facing warning lights." The rear warning lights flash as warning lights until the brakes are applied, at which time they become steady burn. This option is in addition to the standard brake lights. If this is acceptab le, should the lights be required to meet all requirements of stop lights? (ie.; maximum luminous intensity, color, etc...) Brake Enhancer" Standard or additional stop lights are made to flash on/off several times before going steady burn. "Back-up alert strobes" Rear facing high intensity strobe lights that are activated when the gearshift lever is placed into reverse gear. Taillight Flashers" Taillights or brake lights are flashed alternate to backup lights until brakes are applied, at which time they go steady burn. The option at times may be requested to only work of the rear doors on the ambulance are open. |
|
ID: nht95-7.26OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 17, 1995 FROM: Jim Young -- Wheeled Coach TO: John Womack TITLE: FMVSS Compliance ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/17/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Jim Young (A43; Std. 108) TEXT: Wheeled Coach is an Ambulance manufacturer and is in need of a response to the following issues regarding customer specifications for options incorporated into, or in addition to FMVSS lighting. "Brake override circuit for rear facing warning lights." The rear warning lights flash as warning lights until the brakes are applied, at which time they become steady burn. This option is in addition to the standard brake lights. If this is acceptable, should the lights be required to meet all requirements of stop lights? (ie.; maximum luminous intensity, color, etc...) Brake Enhancer" Standard or additional stop lights are made to flash on/off several times before going steady burn. "Back-up alert strobes" Rear facing high intensity strobe lights that are activated when the gearshift lever is placed into reverse gear. Taillight Flashers" Taillights or brake lights are flashed alternate to backup lights until brakes are applied, at which time they go steady burn. The option at times may be requested to only work of the rear doors on the ambulance are open. |
|
ID: 08_002292-dfOpen
Mr. Greg Broemeling Idaho Tote Dolly, Inc. 27980 North Juliaetta Grd. Juliaetta, ID 83535 Dear Mr. Broemeling: This responds to your email inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the classification of your product, The Idaho Tote, under NHTSA regulations. Your email, which you originally sent to Mr. David Coleman of NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, was referred to my office for reply. We have also received a letter from U.S. Senator Michael D. Crapo on your behalf concerning The Idaho Tote, to which we are responding separately. By way of background, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes NHTSA to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which require minimum levels of safety performance. In your email communication to NHTSA, you indicated that you disagree with a recent Idaho Transportation Department classification of The Idaho Tote as a trailer and asked for our opinion on the matter. Keep in mind that State and Federal definitions of types of motor vehicles are relevant for different purposes. State law regulates, among other things, titling, licensing, and other aspects of motor vehicle use requirements. NHTSAs regulations apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and specify, among other things, the requirements of this agency that new vehicles must meet according to the vehicle type. NHTSA does not interpret the laws of the individual States, such as Idahos definitions of motor vehicle type. Under NHTSAs regulations, based on the information supplied to this agency and for the reasons explained below, The Idaho Tote would be considered a trailer. The term motor vehicle is defined in the controlling statute (49 U.S.C. 30102) as a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways. For purposes of applying the FMVSS, NHTSA defines vehicle types as set forth in 49 CFR 571.3. Trailer, which is one of those vehicle types, is defined in the agencys regulations at 49 CFR 571.3(b) as a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. In your letter to Senator Crapo, you described The Idaho Tote as an external toy hauler with its own wheels and axle, which attaches to the towing vehicle by two main frame rails that are bolted to an attachment which is, in turn, welded to the frame of a truck or other towing vehicle. You stated that because The Idaho Tote is able to articulate up and down on the bolts, it eliminates any stress to the frame from road irregularities. You further stated that because it is attached to the towing vehicle by means of the two rails, the tote cannot swerve, sway, or jackknife, as can a trailer that is attached to a towing vehicle at a single pivot point. Under NHTSAs regulations (49 CFR 571.3(b)), a unit is a trailer if it is a motor vehicle (i.e., a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways) and is designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. As is evident from our definition of trailer, the manner in which a unit is attached to a towing vehicle has no bearing on the units classification as a trailer for the purpose of NHTSAs regulations. You described The Idaho Tote as having been developed as an external toy hauler. You also furnished photographs of the tote, which has a flat bed and side rails, carrying what appears to be a small off-road vehicle. Since your product meets the statutory definition of a motor vehicle and is designed for carrying property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle, we would consider The Idaho Tote to be a trailer under NHTSAs regulations.[1] An informational brochure for new trailer manufacturers is posted on our website at www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/maninfo. This brochure identifies and describes the FMVSS that apply to trailers, and certain procedural requirements that a motor vehicle manufacturer must meet under NHTSAs regulations. Those requirements include the need to obtain from the Society of Automotive Engineers a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) to be incorporated into the vehicle identification numbers (VINs) that a manufacturer must assign to motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. A manufacturer must also submit VIN deciphering information to NHTSA at least 60 days before offering for sale a motor vehicle with the manufacturers VIN, as required by NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements.[2] A manufacturer must also submit to NHTSA identifying information on itself and the vehicles that it manufactures, as required under NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Finally, a manufacturer must permanently affix to each motor vehicle it manufactures for sale in the United States a label that, among other things, identifies the manufacturer and the vehicles date of manufacture, and states that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS in effect on that date. This requirement is reflected in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Finally, you noted in the letter you sent to Senator Crapo that you believed that Mr. Coleman of NHTSA, with whom you also communicated by telephone about your product, supported your views and recommended that you plead your case to the Idaho State Senate. In a follow-up conversation with NHTSAs Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Coleman recalled expressing a view that The Idaho Tote would be a trailer under NHTSAs regulations, and that he had only suggested that you discuss matters relating to licensing, titling, and registration requirements with state administrators. We regret any confusion or inconvenience the conversation may have caused. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d.9/25/08 [1] You indicated in your letter to Senator Crapo that a July 25, 1995 letter from NHTSA to David Lowell supported a determination that your product was not a trailer. The letter does not support such a view. The letter addressed the issue of whether a vehicle was a truck or truck tractor under 49 CFR 571.3(b). Under 49 CFR 571.3(b), both trucks and truck tractors are defined as vehicles with motive power, among other characteristics. The Idaho Tote does not have its own engine and is not a truck or truck tractor under NHTSA regulations. [2] NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register of April 30, 2008, (73 FR 23367; NHTSA Docket 2008-0022), corrected 73 FR 28370, that made certain changes to the VIN regulation, effective October 27, 2008. A copy of these final rule documents is enclosed. |
2008 |
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.