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: 23604Open Dietmar K. Haenchen, Process Leader Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your letter asking whether a voluntarily-provided interior trunk release on the rear door of a hatchback triggers a requirement in our door lock standard for a locking mechanism. The answer is yes. The rear door of a hatchback is excluded from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 401, "Interior Trunk Release." Standard No. 401 requires passenger cars with a trunk compartment to have an interior trunk release. In response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule establishing the standard, we amended the standard to specifically exclude passenger cars with a back door (66 FR 43113, August 17, 2001). We defined the term "back door" as: "a door or door system on the back end of a passenger car through which cargo can be loaded or unloaded. The term includes the hinged back door on a hatchback or a station wagon." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the hinged back door on a hatchback is not required to have an interior "trunk release" mechanism. You wish to voluntarily provide an interior release mechanism, but ask whether the mechanism would be required to have a locking mechanism under our door lock standard, Standard No. 206. S4.4.2 of Standard No. 206 states: Each back door system equipped with interior door handles or that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle. When the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative. The question you present is whether the interior release is an "interior door handle" under Standard No. 206. The standard does not define the term "interior door handle." However, the phrase "door handles or other latch release controls" in the last sentence of the passage quoted above from S4.4.2 shows that "door handles" includes "door latch release controls" generally. See also the preamble of the final rule extending the requirements of Standard No. 206 to back doors (60 FR 50124, 50130, September 28, 1995): NHTSA acknowledges that the back doors of some vehicles so equipped [with an interior door handle] are designed for loading and unloading cargo rather than passengers. Nevertheless, sometimes those doors are also used for ingress and egress of back seat occupants. Therefore, if doors designed primarily for loading and unloading cargo lack an interior door handle, no door lock is required. If an interior door handle is present, this rule requires a means for making the door handle (a door release mechanism) inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. (Emphasis added.) We recognize the opposing purposes of Standard No. 206 and No. 401 regarding containment of vehicle occupants. Standard No. 206's intent is to retain occupants. It requires a door lock on the back door of hatchbacks with interior door handles or that leads directly into a passenger compartment to reduce the likelihood of occupants being ejected through the door in a crash. The agency estimated in the September 1995 final rule that the back door of hatchbacks is about three times as likely to open as one of the front side doors and seven to eight times as likely to open as one of the rear side doors in a crash, resulting in 147 fatalities and 189 serious injuries annually from ejections through the back door of hatchbacks, tailgates, and other back doors. Conversely, Standard No. 401's intent is to facilitate occupant release. Yet, the Expert Panel on Trunk Entrapment, which was formed to study the problem of trunk entrapment, did not address hatchbacks, nor were there any data presented to the panel indicating that persons had died as a result of their being inadvertently or intentionally locked in the rear of hatchbacks. Based on this, we conclude that Standard No. 206's interest in occupant containment should prevail. In sum, we appreciate that you want to voluntarily provide a safety device on your hatchbacks. Since, on hatchbacks, the interior release is not required by Standard No. 401, the hatchback does not have to meet that standard's requirements. However, back doors are regulated, and Standard No. 206 requires a back door with an interior door handle (or door release mechanism or latch release control) to have a locking mechanism. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:401 |
2002 |
ID: 08-003686as 1OpenMr. Mark Temple Bikers of Lesser Tolerance 8790 Mellowdawn Way Orangevale, CA 95662 Dear Mr. Temple: This responds to your letter asking several questions related to motorcycle helmets and the testing required to certify to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. We have addressed your questions below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. You first ask if there has been a change in the Federal regulation regarding the certification process for motorcycle helmets in the last 10 years. On October 2, 2008, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register proposing to update the testing procedures and labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 218. A copy of the NPRM is enclosed. Your second question asks if the Department of Transportation (DOT) certifies motorcycle helmets. As explained in the background paragraph to this letter, NHTSA does not provide approval (or certification) of motor vehicle equipment (a motorcycle helmet is considered motor vehicle equipment). Instead, we require that manufacturers certify that new motor vehicle equipment they produce complies with all applicable FMVSSs. Your third question asks for clarification as to what is DOT-certified helmet. DOT-certified helmet commonly means a helmet that has been certified by its manufacturer as meeting all requirements of FMVSS No. 218. Fourth, you ask if, short of testing as specified in FMVSS No. 218, there is any way to determine if the helmet will pass FMVSS No. 218. To assess a products conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA follows the test procedures specified in the applicable standard. Additionally, more detailed testing procedures that NHTSA-contracted laboratories use to test compliance are available on NHTSAs website. We do not require manufacturers to test their products in the manner described in the standard, but they must ensure that their product will meet the specified performance requirements when tested by NHTSA in the manner set forth in the standard. Your next question asks why helmets are subjected to expensive and rigorous scientific testing if there is another, possibly less expensive method to determine compliance with FMVSS No. 218. Our performance tests are designed to be reasonable, practicable and objective. If you believe that NHTSAs testing requirements can be made less expensive and that adequate testing of the safety considerations can be met through less burdensome means, you are welcome to submit those ideas with supporting documentation to the agency. Your final question asks if we are aware of any State enforcement agency that cites an end user/consumer of FMVSS regulated products for the use of a recalled product, other than motorcycle helmets? By recalled product, we assume you mean a product that does not meet applicable standards. For answers about specific State laws, you should direct your question to the State departments administering motor vehicle regulations. We do note that State agencies have the authority and the responsibility to regulate the use of motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment, ensuring motorists and taxpayers in their jurisdictions are protected to the best of the States ability. States have sought to optimize the safety of motorists by requiring the use of safety equipment, e.g., seat belts, child safety seats, see-through windows, motorcycle helmets, tires, and by specifying that the equipment be certified to the FMVSSs. NHTSA strongly recommends the use of such equipment, as equipment meeting the FMVSSs reduce the risk of involvement in a crash, the severity of injury or the likelihood of death in a crash. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:218 d.11/20/08 |
2008 |
ID: nht90-1.10OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 01/09/90 FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL TO: HOWARD KOSSOVER -- CMI TRAILER DIVISION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/08/89 FROM HOWARD KOSSOVER -- CMI TRAILER DIVISION; OCC 4233 TEXT: Dear Mr. Kossover: This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1989, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have enclosed photographs of a semi-trailer that you are constructing, and wish to know whether the location of the rear turn signal, stop, and taillamps comply wi th the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires each of these lamps to be "on the rear". In addition, the SAE requirements for each of these lamps that are incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 require that visibility of each lamp shall not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle throughout the photometric test angles for the lamp, unless the lamp is designed to comply with all photometric and visibility requirements with these obstructions considered. In addition, signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right. To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex, at le ast 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The lamps on your semi-trailer are mounted 27 inches from the rear of the vehicle. In that position the lamps are not mounted "on the rear". Further, we question whether the 45 degree visibility requirements would be met, especially for the inboard lam ps. We do not know whether the extended portion of the vehicle between the lamps is a sufficient obstruction to affect compliance with the photometric requirements. Overall, it does not appear that this design complies with Standard No. 108. Sincerely, |
|
ID: 77-4.7OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/28/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your August 19, 1977, letter asking whether Standard 217, Bus Window Retention Release, allows the identification of the rear emergency door located anywhere on the top half of the door. The standard in S5.5.3 requires the emergency door identification to be located "at the top of or directly above the emergency exit. . . ." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this requirement to mean that the emergency door label must be located on the top half of the door or directly above the door. The label location as depicted in the picture you enclosed with your letter appears to comply with the requirements S5.5.3. SINCERELY, Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC. August 19, 1977 Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation Attn: Roger Tilton, F.M.V.S.S. - 217 Enclosed is a photo showing the location of the wording "Emergency Door" on the rear of a school bus. This is in reference to our phone conversations regarding Section S5.5.3. School Buses of 17 August, 1977. (F.M.V.S.S. - 217) The glass area at the top will have an illuminated sign with the words "School Bus". When not used as a school bus by State Law it must be covered. The result is that the cover does not permit the word "Emergency Door" to be on top of the door and, also, the size required by S5.5.3. Pennsylvania requires a three (3) (Illegible Word) letter which is impossible. Actually, we feel that the location on a school bus as pictured is safer particularly in a vertical position since it is closer to a person eye level. We trust you will look with favor upon this request, and wish to thank you for your courtesies to us during our phone conversations. James Tydings, Specifications Engineer |
|
ID: nht88-1.87OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 04/06/88 FROM: DENNIS G. MOORE -- PRESIDENT SIERRA PRODUCTS TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DENNIS G. MOORE, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2), STANDARD 108 TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones: Pursuant to a request, via a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of your office and Daryl Thomas of our company relative to the "Canadian Problem", these are the events chronologically: 1) My letter to the NHTSA, dated December 27,1986, asking for a clarification on the law pertaining to the combination of tail light with a clearance light. The March 4, 1977 reply of acting Chief Counsel Frank Berndt, and his June 18, 1979 reply to the Trailer Manufacturer Association. 2) The 25 letter correspondence between our company and the Transport of Canada, Ottawa. I have also included a letter I sent to the Canadian Consulate General in Los Angeles dated October 9, 1981, regarding my attempt to try and get our Barrier to Trade Agreement enforced. Finally, I've included a copy of The Canada Gazette dated August 14, 1987 pertaining to "Optically Combined Lamps" for your reference. I hope this gives you enough information on this issue to settle it as this puts us in a precarious and "expensive" position as the Canadians are not permitting our lights into Canada because of their new law. I have several other matters I will be sending you letters about in the next few months, some of which are very old petitions and requests for law interpretations that apparently have been "lost" in the NHTSA System. Very truly yours, |
|
ID: GF003409-2OpenMr. Lance Tunick Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your e-mail of March 22, 2004, in which you ask several questions with respect to a hardtop convertible vehicle equipped with a retractable glass roof. The vehicle in question will have a tinted glass roof, which retracts rearward to a stowed position inside the vehicles rear deck (trunk). A thin carbon fiber frame will surround the glass roof panel. A latch mechanism secures the roof to the windshield header when the roof is not stowed. You ask whether the glass roof, as well as carbon fiber frame and latch mechanism are exempt from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. You also ask what roof glazing materials would comply with FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials. In establishing FMVSS No. 201, the agency excluded convertible roof frames and linkage mechanisms from the requirements of the standard because a countermeasure such as padding would interfere with their movement (see 60 FR 43031, at 43047). S6.3(a) of FMVSS No. 201 provides that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of S6.1 through S6.2 for any target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible roof linkage mechanism. Accordingly, the carbon fiber roof frame and the latch mechanism in your vehicle are exempt from S6.1 and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201. With respect to the glass portion of the convertible roof in your vehicle, the agency has previously stated that FMVSS No. 201 was not intended to prevent injuries resulting from impacts with glazing. Accordingly, the glass portion of the convertible roof is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 201. Finally, FMVSS No. 205 contains no light transmittance requirements applicable to a glass roof described in your letter because roof glazing is in an area not requisite for driver visibility. The type of glazing material that can be used in the glass portion of the convertible roof is any glazing material subject to FMVSS No. 205, including glazing materials incorporated by reference from ANSI/SAE Z26.11996. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:201 |
2004 |
ID: nht78-2.8OpenDATE: 06/19/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Highway Manufacturing Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 1, 1978, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking whether marker lamps on your new "bevel designed front Van Trailer" comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, instead of providing two amber clearance lamps, on the trailer front and two amber side marker lamps at the trailer's leading edge, you would install a combination clearance-side marker lamp at 45 degrees on the beveled leading edge of the trailer. Paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108 permits a side marker lamp to be combined with a clearance lamp "if the requirements for each lamp . . . are met . . . ." This means that the combination lamp in position on the vehicle must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972. This standard addresses specific photometric requirements for combination clearance and side marker lamps and I enclose a copy for your information. SINCERELY, March 1, 1978 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attn: Taylor Binson Chief Consul Dear Sir: We would like to have a ruling on location of marker lights on our new bevel designed front Van Trailer. At present we use four (4) amber lights; two (2) on front and two (2) on side at front. Would it be permissible to use two (2) amber lights on the 45 degree front bevel corner and eliminate two (2) lights? Enclosed is a sketch showing front of trailer marked per above. HIGHWAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY A Division of MOTAC, INC. LaVerne L. Kruckenberg -- Engineer (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: nht73-4.14OpenDATE: 05/02/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Leaseway Transportation Corp. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated February 28, 1973 asking whether a planned wholly owned subsidiary of Leaseway Transportation Co. would be required to certify vehicles which it readies for service adding numerous components, including fifth wheels, for another company, also a wholly owned subsidiary of Leaseway Transportation Co. You state that under this arrangement title is always held by some component of the Leaseway organization. Persons who install fifth wheels have generally been considered to be "final-stage manufacturers" under NHTSA certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). Final-stage manufacturers, including those who complete vehicles for their own use, are required to complete such vehicles in conformity with applicable Federal standards, and to certify that conformity pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 567, 568. The NHTSA position is that the status of the title does not affect the basic responsibility of final-stage manufacturers to certify the conformity of vehicles that they manufacture. |
|
ID: aiam1245OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Toyota Motors Sales U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1973, concerning Toyota' use of a clip to prevent the shoulder belt from rubbing the occupant's neck. Your questions are (1) whether a clip of this type is permitted by Standard No. 208 and (2) whether the clip would be considered a part of the anchorage under Standard No. 210.; Your description of the clip indicates that it does not restrict th free travel of the webbing. The clip would therefore not inhibit the ability of the belt to adjust automatically to fit the occupant, as required by S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. It is our opinion that such a clip is permitted by Standard No. 208.; We have also concluded that a plastic guide clip designed so as not t affect the basic geometry of the belt during a crash is not a seat belt anchorage for purposes of Standard No. 210. The clip you describe would therefore not be required to meet the strength of location requirements of that Standard.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1244OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Toyota Motors Sales U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1973, concerning Toyota' use of a clip to prevent the shoulder belt from rubbing the occupant's neck. Your questions are (1) whether a clip of this type is permitted by Standard No. 208 and (2) whether the clip would be considered a part of the anchorage under Standard No. 210.; Your description of the clip indicates that it does not restrict th free travel of the webbing. The clip would therefore not inhibit the ability of the belt to adjust automatically to fit the occupant, as required by S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. It is our opinion that such a clip is permitted by Standard No. 208.; We have also concluded that a plastic guide clip designed so as not t affect the basic geometry of the belt during a crash is not a seat belt anchorage for purposes of Standard No. 210. The clip you describe would therefore not be required to meet the strength of location requirements of that Standard.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.