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: aiam0634OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: I have enclosed our reply to Mr. Grace of White River Distributors Inc., whose letter you forwarded to us on March 10, 1972, and request that you forward our response to him. His letter to us contains no return address, and we are consequently unable to write to him directly.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5436OpenMr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York School Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan, NY 14527; Mr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York School Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan NY 14527; Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your facsimile transmittal lette to me of July 19, 1994. Your letter referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), and asked whether emergency exits on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and a passenger capacity of 2 to 16 seated and/or wheelchair positions, are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape as specified in paragraph S5.5.3(c) of the standard. In 49 CFR 571.3, this agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a school bus as A bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. Whether or not a vehicle is a school bus, therefore, depends on its use (transporting the specified students) and seating capacity (more than 10), and not GVWR. Accordingly, if the seating capacity of a vehicle is 10 or less, it is not a bus and likewise not a school bus, regardless of use or GVWR. Such a vehicle would not be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Vehicles meeting the definition of school bus would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Section S5.5 of the standard, Emergency Exit Identification, specifies the marking requirements for emergency exits on all buses. Sections S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 apply to non-school buses, while section S5.5.3 applies to all school buses, without regard to GVWR. Paragraph S5.5.3(c) provides: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1. We would like to emphasize two points with regard to your letter. The first is that only those emergency exits that are required by the standard are subject to this provision. Extra emergency exits added as options are encouraged, but not required, to be outlined with the tape. The other point is one that I made in a May 18, 1994 letter to you. A technical amendment is pending publication which will amend the size requirement for the width of the retroreflective tape, from a minimum of 3 centimeters (cm.) to a minimum of 2.5 cm. That amendment is necessary because retroreflective tape is not commercially available in 3 cm. widths. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape width size against a manufacturer who uses one inch wide (minimum 2.5 cm.) retroreflective tape. In closing, bear in mind that all school buses are required to have a specified number of emergency exits, the number and location of which depend on the seating capacity of the vehicle, regardless of the GVWR, and all required emergency exits must be outlined with the retroreflective tape. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1475OpenMr. Andrew T. Hospodor, 423 Silver Hill Road, Cherry Hill, NJ 08034; Mr. Andrew T. Hospodor 423 Silver Hill Road Cherry Hill NJ 08034; Dear Mr. Hospodor: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1974, concerning th defect notification campaign involving your 1972 Open Road motor home. You object to Open Road's insistence that you sign an authorization for repair and alteration form which contains a rather comprehensive indemnity and hold-harmless provision.; The NHTSA is without authority to compel the making of any repairs t potentially defective vehicles in the hands of purchasers. Manufacturers are free to make repairs subject to conditions, or to not make them at all. The NHTSA has issued regulations regarding the content of defect notification letters (49 CFR Part 577) but does not consider these regulations to apply to the campaign in question as the campaign was initiated before the regulations became effective.; We have corresponded with Open Road regarding this matter, which wa first brought to our attention by another purchaser whose objections were similar to your own. That purchaser signed a modified authorization form with Open Road, who has provided us with a copy which we enclose for your information. Open Road has informed us that the *sole* purpose of the indemnity and hold-harmless clause to which you object is to protect Open Road from third party claims for unauthorized repairs. A copy of Open Road's letter to us with that representation is enclosed should you wish to undertake further negotiations with the company.; We have notified Open Road that future campaign notification letter must be revised if the company insists on the continued use of the indemnity and hold- harmless provision in its present form. Copies of this correspondence with Open Road are also enclosed.; We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3448OpenRoger E. Maugh, Director, Automotive Safety Office, Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Roger E. Maugh Director Automotive Safety Office Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; Dear Mr. Maugh: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1981, to Hugh Oates of m staff requesting an interpretation concerning Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You ask whether you are correct in your belief that the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of the standard apply to the seat belt anchorages used in your planned 1982-model Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2.; Paragraph S4.3.1 of the Standard specifies location requirements fo the seat belt anchorages for Type 1 seat belt assemblies and the pelvic portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies in those installations in which the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame, and the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2 apply in installations in which the seat belt does bear upon the seat frame. On the 1982 Continental passenger cars, the buckle end of the seat belt assembly passes through a 'console support structure' which is connected to the bottom of the seat frame. However, you contend that since the console support structure is not a structural component of the seat frame, the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame and, consequently, that paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies.; Your interpretation of paragraphs S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 is correct. Th phrase 'bears upon the seat frame' as used in paragraph S4.3.1.2 refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat. As illustrated in the photographs supplied in your letter, the seat belt in the 1982-model Continental passenger cars does not bear upon the structural seat frame. Rather, the belt rests on the console support frame which is not a necessary structural component of the main seat frame, but is merely attached to the seat frame at the bottom on the inboard side. Since the seat belt is located to the side of the seat frame and does not bear upon the structural seat frame itself, the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 apply to the location of the seat belt anchorages used in the 1982 Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of Paragraph S4.3.1.2.; We note that the console support frame could easily have been attache to the transmission tunnel rather than to the seat frame. In that case, the seat belt obviously would not bear upon the seat frame. However, with such a design, the frame supporting the belt would not move with the seat, and the driver could have problems reaching the belt and positioning it properly when the seat is in certain positions. The design of the passenger seat and seat belt assembly in the 1982 Continental is very desirable because attachment of the console support frame to the seat makes the seat belt very accessible in all seat positions. The fact that the console was attached to the seat frame for convenience purposes does not mean that the console is part of the seat frame within the meaning of S4.3.1.2.; The original intent of the location requirements of FMVSS 210 was t enhance belt performance with acceptable belt comfort and convenience. The specific requirements that are the subject of this interpretation were intended to ensure that belts would not develop excessive slack if a seat structural member bent or failed during a crash, and to reduce the likelihood that the lap belt would move into the abdominal area during a crash. We trust that Ford has adequately tested the configuration that is proposed here to ensure proper performance in a crash situation.; Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4677OpenMr. James A. Cowan, Jr. Director of Engineering Crown Coach Incorporated 13799 Monte Vista Avenue Chino, CA 91710-5513; Mr. James A. Cowan Jr. Director of Engineering Crown Coach Incorporated 13799 Monte Vista Avenue Chino CA 91710-5513; Dear Mr. Cowan: This is in response to your request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217: Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. Your letter explained that Crown plans to sell one prototype school bus model which was developed but not produced, and which contains a side emergency exit which is wider than required under Standard No. 217. Because of the wider door, the seatback of the passenger seat located immediately forward of the emergency exit door intrudes into the emergency door exit opening. You have requested an interpretation as to whether this is consistent with Standard No. 217. The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 217 specifically requires that ' a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seatback shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door.' S5.4.2.1(b). This requirement prohibits the forward seat or seatback from extending into the door opening regardless of the size of the door opening. Therefore, as it is now configured, the bus you have described in your letter is not in compliance with Standard No. 217. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions concerning this issue. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1025OpenJ. Reese Daniel, Esquire, Suite 609, Security Federal Building, Columbia, SC 29201; J. Reese Daniel Esquire Suite 609 Security Federal Building Columbia SC 29201; Dear Mr. Daniel: This is in response to your letter of February 27, 1973, concerning th method of giving the odometer disclosure statement required by 49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements.; The odometer disclosure statement must contain the informatio specified in S 580.4 of the requirements. The statement must be in the form specified in S 580.6, but it does not have to be separate from the other transfer documents. Your clients may incorporate the statement into the bill of sale, as long as the resulting document contains the information specified by S 580.4.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3018OpenMr. David L. Kelly, Pullman Trailmobile, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60601; Mr. David L. Kelly Pullman Trailmobile 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago Illinois 60601; Dear Mr. Kelly: This is in response to your letter of January 12, 1979, requesting a interpretation of the term 'production process' as used in 49 CFR 571.115, S4.5.3.3. We are sorry for the delay in responding.; The production practice you describe on page 2 of your letter woul satisfy S4.5.3.3. In the preamble to the final rule published on August 17, 1978 (43 FR 36451), the agency stated:; >>>The NPRM proposed that the last six characters represent th sequential number of a vehicle when the manufacturer produced more than 500 vehicles annually of that type.; A number of comments pointed out that for various reasons a vehicl might be taken from a production line, thereby having an actual sequential number which differs from the production sequence number originally assigned by the manufacturer. The proposal is amended to indicate that the production sequence number is required.<<<; Thus, Pullman Trailmobile should indicate the sequential numbe originally assigned by the manufacturer, not the number reflecting exact order in which the vehicle is produced.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4227OpenMelvin Krewall, Administrator, Transportation Section, Finance Division, Oklahoma State Department of Education, 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599; Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City OK 73105-4599; Dear Mr. Krewall: This responds to your August 22, 1986, letter to former Chief Counse Jeffrey Miller concerning our regulations for school bus manufacturing. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has certified and approved the 'Asia Smith Chassis' for school buses. You stated that you need a copy of the certification because Oklahoma requires chassis to be approved by the state Board of Education before they can be sold in Oklahoma.; I would like to begin by clarifying that the NHTSA does not certify o approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. This agency regulates motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. Manufacturers certify their school buses by attaching a label to their vehicles in accordance with our certification procedures. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with applicable safety standards.; A school bus manufacturer who installs a school bus body on a ne chassis (such as an Asia Smith chassis) is required by our certification regulations (49 CFR 567 and 568) to certify the completed vehicle to Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those regulations require the chassis manufacturer to furnish information which assists the vehicle manufacturer in making that certification. When certifying its school buses, the manufacturer affirms that the vehicle, including the chassis, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including school bus safety standards.; You indicated that Oklahoma requires school bus chassis to be approve by the state before their sale. I am concerned with this requirement because its imposition could be preempted by operation of the Vehicle Safety Act. The first sentence of section 103(d) of the Safety Act states:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item or motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standards. . . .<<<; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Federal Registe notice issued by the agency concerning the issue of preemption and pre-sale state enforcement of safety standards (47 Fed. Reg. 884, January 7, 1982). The notice discusses NHTSA's position that Federal law preempts state requirements which proscribe the sale of equipment certified to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless the equipment is also approved by the State. We believe that Oklahoma's requirement for approval of school bus chassis is analogous.; As I understand Oklahoma's requirement, it imposes requirements whic have the effect of proscribing the sale of certified school buses unless their chassis are also approved by the State. Apparently, school buses manufactured with chassis lacking state approval may not be sold in Oklahoma, even though the vehicle has been certified as meeting all applicable Federal standards. In my opinion, such a requirement is preempted because it imposes burdens differing in a significant respect from the Federal regulatory scheme.; I hope this information is helpful. If you wish to further discuss th preemption issue or have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2520OpenMr. H. Miyazawa, Director, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Department, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguro-Ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. H. Miyazawa Director Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-Ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1977, concerning th symbol 'DOT' as a certification of compliance to FMVSS No. 108.; The symbol 'DOT' is permitted by the Standard to be placed on the ite of equipment in lieu of the certification requirements of Section 114 of the 'National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966,' which states, in part '...In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered...'; 'DOT' on the individual container does not meet the certificatio requirements. The label or tag must state that the item 'conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.'; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2170OpenMr. Edward W. Erne, Chief, Standards and Specifications Division, Bureau of Standards, Department of General Services, 2221 Forster Street, Harrisburg, PA 17125; Mr. Edward W. Erne Chief Standards and Specifications Division Bureau of Standards Department of General Services 2221 Forster Street Harrisburg PA 17125; Dear Mr. Erne: This responds to your December 12, 1975, question whether Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, requires a restraining device for side-facing folding seats that are to (sic) used in buses and van-type vehicles.; Subsection S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 207 requires that side-facin folding seats be equipped with a restraining device, unless the seat is a 'passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.'; A 'bus' is defined by Section 571.3 as a 'motor vehicle with motiv power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' Therefore, in order to come within the 'bus' exception of S4.3, the vehicle must be designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Otherwise a restraining device is required.; A 'van-type' vehicle is either a 'bus', a 'multi-purpose passenge vehicle,' or a 'truck,' depending on the number of designated seating positions. If the vehicle is designed for 10 persons or less, it is a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, not a bus, and S4.3 requires a restraining device for side-facing folding seats.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.