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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam1878OpenMr. John S. Knaur, Jr., Brougham Industries, P.O. Box 768, 101 Bolivar Street, Sanger, TX 76266; Mr. John S. Knaur Jr. Brougham Industries P.O. Box 768 101 Bolivar Street Sanger TX 76266; Dear Mr. Knaur: This responds to your March 17, 1975, request for an explanation of th seat belt assembly installation requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, as they apply to motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, and those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.; The standard requires that motor homes with a GVWR of more than 10,00 pounds be equipped with 'passive' crash protection of a certain level (S4.3.1) or a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each designated seating position (S4.3.2).; Motor homes with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped wit 'passive' crash protection of a certain level (S4.2.1.1) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly at each outboard designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each other designated seating position(S4.2.1.2).; At the front outboard designated seating position, you state that th incomplete vehicle manufacturer provides Type 1 seat belts. Unless the documentation, provided under Part 568 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 568), states that modification of the Type 1 seat belts is required to meet Standard No. 208, it appears that the vehicle windshield header is not within the head impact area and that Type 1 seat belts meet the requirement.; You point out that some manufacturers may not provide as man designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations in the vehicle. We evaluated the proportion of this problem recently because of the possibility that occupants were not being provided with enough Type 1 seat belts. An informal but comprehensive survey at a recent trade show indicated that the problem is extremely limited. If you have information that this practice is becoming more common, please provide this office with more specific identification of manufacturer and model line.; We do appreciate your efforts to provide your purchasers with a hig level of crash protection.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2242OpenMr. Gerald Werner, President, Werner Incorporated, P.O. Box 310, 10861 Straits Hwy., Cheboygan, MI 49721; Mr. Gerald Werner President Werner Incorporated P.O. Box 310 10861 Straits Hwy. Cheboygan MI 49721; Dear Mr. Werner: This is in response to your letter of November 20, 1975, concernin certification of your company's roof vents as being in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*.; In our correspondence to you of August 25, 1975, we stated that roo vent covers of the type your company manufactures are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205. However, we also stated that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concurred in the view that roof vent covers manufactured by the injection molding process were not susceptible to testing under the procedures found in USAS Z26.1. Further, we informed you that the NHTSA intended to issue proposed rulemaking that would establish a surrogate testing procedure for these roof vent covers, and that until this was done the NHTSA would not take action against manufacturers who did not certify that their injection molded covers met the requirements of Standard No. 205.; Upon further consideration and review, however, the NHTSA ha determined that it must retract its earlier concurrence in the view that roof vent covers manufactured by the injection molding process are not susceptible to testing under the procedures specified in USAS Z26.1.; The earlier concern that the USAS Z26.1 test procedures wer inappropriate for testing the covers was based upon the fact that the USAS tests call for 'substantially flat specimens'. Manufacturers of the roof vents contended that covers manufactured by the injection molding process were not 'substantially flat' in their finished condition or at any time during their manufacture, and hence could not be tested for compliance with USAS Z26.1 requirements.; The NHTSA has since concluded that manufacturers can test their roo vent product under the procedures specified in USAS Z26.1, and thereby certify compliance with Standard No. 205. The USAS tests do not require the test specimens to be cut from the actual product--in this case the roof vent covers. Therefore, although the vent covers themselves are not 'substantially flat,' it is possible to mold flat specimens of the same material for purposes of the USAS tests. Consequently, it is not necessary that the NHTSA issue new surrogate testing procedures.; Since this is a reversal of our previous position, the NHTSA will no consider this interpretation to take effect with respect to glazing manufactured before September 1, 1976.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5587OpenGeorge E. Walton International Manufacturer's Consultants, Inc. 7618 Winterberry Place Bethesda, MD 20817; George E. Walton International Manufacturer's Consultants Inc. 7618 Winterberry Place Bethesda MD 20817; Dear Mr. Walton: This responds to your July 13, 1995 letter requestin an interpretation regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, 'Glazing Materials.' You stated in your letter that your client wants to know if Standard No. 205 permits the use of laminated AS-1 glass in motorcycle windshields. The answer to your question is yes. ANSI Z26.1-1977, which has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 205, explicitly refers to item 1 glazing (defined as including laminated glass) as 'Safety Glazing Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle.' Motorcycles are motor vehicles. Therefore, item 1 glazing is permitted in that application. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0785OpenMr. Philip Ralston, Aero Precision Inc., 3608 Stone Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO 80907; Mr. Philip Ralston Aero Precision Inc. 3608 Stone Avenue Colorado Springs CO 80907; Dear Mr. Ralston: This is in reply to your letter of July 5, 1972, concerning th applicability of Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, to the bumpers you manufacture for pickup trucks.; Standard No. 215 does not apply to vehicles other than passenger cars so that pickup trucks equipped with your bumper would not have to conform.; We do not have the facilities to conduct product evaluation tests o the type you have in mind. We are enclosing a copy of the standard, however, for your review. The test procedures are set out in sections S6 and S7.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1897OpenHonorable Dante B. Fascell, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Dante B. Fascell House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Fascell: This is in response to your letter of March 31, 1975, forwardin correspondence from Mr. Gurth G. West commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal bumper standard by urging that recyclability of bumpers be assured.; Although promulgation of rules that have a direct positive impact o the environmental and energy situation is not within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) jurisdiction, the agency gives serious consideration to the effect any of its standards will have on these important areas of concern.; The NHTSA's most recent proposal (March 12, 1975, 40 F.R. 11598, Docke No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6) ensures that a wide variety of materials, including metals, could continue to be used in bumper systems.; We greatly appreciate your interest and that of Mr. West in thi matter. You can be sure that his comments will be given every consideration.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2612OpenMr. Matt Kolb, Suite 937 Spitzer Building, Toledo, OH 43604; Mr. Matt Kolb Suite 937 Spitzer Building Toledo OH 43604; Dear Mr. Kolb: This responds to your April 18, 1977, letter asking whether ou regulations pertaining to truck-camper loading apply to trucks designed to haul fifth-wheel trailers.; Truck manufacturers are required to supply information pertaining t the cargo weight rating and longitudinal limits for the center of gravity of those vehicles capable of accommodating slide-in campers (Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 49, Part 575.103, *Truck-camper loading*). Slide-in camper is defined as 'a camper having a roof, floor, and sides, designed to be mounted on and removable from the cargo area of a truck by the user.' The purpose of this information requirement is to lessen the possibility of vehicle overloading. Since fifth-wheel trailers do not fall within the definition of slide-in camper, the regulations pertaining to truck-camper loading do not apply to vehicles designed to haul these trailers.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3900OpenMr. Ernest Farmer, Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education, Office of Commissioner, Cordell Hull Building, Nashville, TN 37219-5335; Mr. Ernest Farmer Director Pupil Transportation Tennessee State Department of Education Office of Commissioner Cordell Hull Building Nashville TN 37219-5335; Dear Mr. Farmer: This responds to your letter to me regarding our motor vehicle safet standards for school buses. You asked several questions about Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. In a telephone conversation you had on February 8, 1985, with Ms. Hom of my staff, you also asked about the safety standards that apply to vans carrying 10 or less persons that are used to transport school children.; To begin, I would like to explain that the motor vehicle safet standards issued by our agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. As you know, in 1974, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. A manufacturer or dealer who sells a new bus to a school must sell a bus that complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.; Under our regulations, a 'bus' is defined as a motor vehicle designe for carrying 11 or more persons. 'School bus' is defined as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (excluding buses sold as common carriers in urban transportation). A van type vehicle, constructed on a truck chassis, carrying 10 persons or less is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV). New MPV's sold to schools need not meet the school bus safety standards, since these vehicles are not buses. However, there are many motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's. New MPV's must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with these safety standards. I have enclosed a list of the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's, as you requested.; The first question in your letter asked whether we require 'Type A vehicles which carry 15 to 22 passengers to comply with the provisions of Standards Nos. 222 and 301. Over the telephone, you explained that these vehicles are school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.; The answer to this question is yes. Standard No. 222 applies to al school buses. However, the requirements of the standard vary depending on the GVWR of the bus. Standard No. 301 applies to all school buses that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. A new school bus must be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of these safety standards.; The first part to your second question asked, 'Does NHTSA consider a 1 inch crash barrier installed in front of standard 39 inch bench seats on the right side of the aisle in these vehicles to be in compliance with FMVSS 222?'; The answer to this question is that there is no violation of Standar No. 222's restraining barrier requirements. This is because the restraining barrier requirements do not apply to school buses of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. Paragraph S5(b) of the standard lists the requirements that apply to these smaller school buses, and the restraining barrier requirements found in paragraph S5.2 are not listed in S5(b). If a manufacturer voluntarily chooses to install a restraining barrier in these buses, there is no violation of Standard No. 222 if the barrier is not as wide as the designated seating positions behind it.; The second part of this question asked, 'Would seat belts on the fron row of seats void the crash barrier requirement in this standard for Type A vehicles? (We are aware that NHTSA requires seat belts on all Type A vehicles)'(sic); The answer to this question is similar to that given above. Restrainin barriers on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less are not required by Standard No. 222. Since these smaller school buses are equipped with seat belts, the standard does not regulate seat spacing in these vehicles.; The third part of this question asked, 'Would the location of the ga tank between frame members also void the requirement in FMVSS 301 for a protective barrier?'; The answer is that Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements tha each school bus must meet, it does not require specific designs, such as a protective barrier. A manufacturer can position its gas tank at any location as long as it can meet the performance requirements of the standard at that location.; Your third question asked, 'Does NHTSA require the installation of metal shield between the exhaust system and the gas tank when such locations are 12 inches or less from each other? (Note: We have some Type A vehicles with variations of 6 to 8 inches that supposedly have NHTSA approval.)'; Neither Standard No. 301 nor any of the agency's other standards se any requirements concerning the installation of metal shields between the exhaust system and the gas tank.; If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4396OpenMr. Sidney A. Garrett, President, Brown Cargo Van Inc., 807 East 29th, Lawrence, KS 66046; Mr. Sidney A. Garrett President Brown Cargo Van Inc. 807 East 29th Lawrence KS 66046; Dear Mr. Garrett: This is in reply to your letter of June 29, 1987, to Taylor Vinson o this office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You state that you are a manufacturer of truck van bodies. With respect to intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors, you state that you are currently 'installing lights on our upper rail and reflectors just above the lower rail'. You have asked whether you are installing lights and reflectors on the front of each side that are unnecessary under current Federal regulations.; The requirements of Standard No. 108 come into effect only when a truc chassis is completed with the addition of the van body. Front side markers and reflectors on a truck must be located as far forward as practicable. This is generally in the front fender area, and not on the front edge of the van body. Thus, we think you are correct in concluding that the front lights and reflectors you install are unnecessary.; You have also asked 'whether compliance with Federal regulation constitutes compliance with the various States' regulations....' As a practical matter, the answer is yes. Under the Act, a State may have its own requirements for the number and location of side marker lamps and reflectors but they must be identical to Federal requirements. Once you comply with the Federal requirements for side marker lamps and reflectors you cannot be in noncompliance with any State requirement that may differ, because the Act prohibits States from having requirements that differ from those of Standard No. 108.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3453OpenMr. Mick W. Blakely, C. F. Liebert, Inc., P. O. Box Drawer L, Blaine, WA 98230; Mr. Mick W. Blakely C. F. Liebert Inc. P. O. Box Drawer L Blaine WA 98230; Dear Mr. Blakely: This responds to your letter of April 7, 1981, concerning 'Oil Wel Service Rigs.' Please accept our apologies for the lateness of our reply. You ask whether NHTSA considers oil well service rigs to be off-road vehicles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safet standards for 'motor vehicles'. Therefore, our regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act). Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle as:; >>>Any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<<; Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects wil use public highways as part of its intended function; Tracked and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not moto vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. aircraft runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles are not considered to be motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of his customers actually would use them on the highway.; Just as clearly, vehicles which use the highway on a necessary an recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work- performing nature and as such their manufacturer contemplate a primary use of the highway. Rigs and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers are examples in this area. Even if the equipment uses highways infrequently, it is considered a motor vehicle on the same basis as is a 'mobile structure trailer' which is often towed only once from the factory to the home site. All these motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such, they are subject to several of the motor vehicle safety standards, and the manufacturer must comply with other regulations in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. (However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the District Court's decision that mobile construction equipment does not fall within the definition of 'motor vehicles' found in section 102(3) of the Act. *Koehring Co. v. Adams*, 452 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Wis. 1978), *aff'd*., 605 F.2d 280 (7th Cir. 1979). The agency construes the opinion to apply only to the specific equipment at issue in *Koehring Co*., i.e. mobile excavators, and mobile well drills.); There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicl classification despite their use of the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicle.; In your letter you state that oil well service rigs were designed fo off road use and use the highways infrequently. You also state that oil well service rigs can travel on the highways only when a special permit has been obtained because the vehicles are oversize. We assume that since a special permit is required for the use of such vehicles on the highway, oil well service rigs cannot travel unescorted on public roads. On the basis of the representations contained in your letter, and the assumptions we have made, we have determined that the oil well service rigs manufactured by Mainland Manufacturing are not 'motor vehicles' for purposes of the Act and Form HS-7. This is because an oil well service rig uses the highways infrequently and is distinguished by its escorts from the normal flow of traffic.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1194OpenMr. John R. Hamm, Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co., 111 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53202; Mr. John R. Hamm Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co. 111 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee WI 53202; Dear Mr. Hamm: This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1973, concerning you dealer's refusal to move back the driver's seat in your new car. I apologize for the delay in our reply.; You state in your letter that adjustment of the seat was made pre-condition of the sale. A dealer who adjusts a seat prior to sale in this fashion will have to be able to certify that the seat, as modified, conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard governing passenger car seats (Standard 207) and to other standards that may be affected by the seat position, such as the seat belt anchorage standard (Standard No.210). A dealer is not prohibited from making changes in the seat so long as the modified seats continue to perform in the manner required by the standard. Often, however, dealers decide not to assume the burdens of certifying modified components and therefore decline to modify such components prior to sale.; The Federal Safety Standards do not apply to motor vehicles after the have been purchased by the consumer. After you purchase the car, the standards do not prevent you from modifying it, even if such modifications affect the ability of the car to meet the standards. If you purchased your car with the seat in its modified position, you can modify it or have the dealer modify it without incurring liability under the standards.; 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.