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: aiam5469OpenMr. Roger Matoba 5665 White Mountain Ct. Martinez, CA 94553; Mr. Roger Matoba 5665 White Mountain Ct. Martinez CA 94553; Dear Mr. Matoba: This responds to your letter, addressed to Patrici Breslin, asking us to review our safety belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans. You stated that manufacturers interpret Safety Standard No. 208 to require the installation of shoulder belts for these seating positions. You expressed concern that this requirement creates a safety hazard for vehicles with a side aisle to rear seating locations. According to your letter, passenger seats next to the side aisle have shoulder belts that cross the aisle. You believe that these shoulder belts would block the exit of more rearward passengers in an emergency, and suggested that we eliminate this requirement. Your understanding of Standard No. 208's requirements is not entirely correct. It is correct that the standard requires (S4.2.4) lap/shoulder safety belts in all forward-facing 'rear outboard designated seating positions' in new passenger vans with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. However, under S4.2.4.1, the term 'rear outboard designated seating position' excludes, for purposes of this requirement, any seating positions that are 'adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehicle, which walkway is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions.' Therefore, the seating positions that you are concerned about are not required to have shoulder safety belts. The standard instead only requires manufacturers to provide lap safety belts for these seating positions. NHTSA decided not to require shoulder safety belts at these seating positions because the agency recognized that the belts might obstruct an aisle designed to give access to rear seating positions. Manufacturers are, however, permitted to provide lap/shoulder belts if they choose to do so. With respect to your concerns about the safety of shoulder safety belts which cross an aisle, I note that such belts do not in fact prevent rearward passengers from exiting the vehicle. Such passengers may exit the vehicle by going under or over the belt. They may also move the belt aside by spooling out the webbing, or even unlatch the belt. Indeed, any difficulty that rearward occupants face in exiting the vehicle is much smaller than that faced by rear seat occupants in a two-door car or the occupants of middle seats. In considering the safety of such belts, it is also important to consider the extra protection offered by the shoulder belt to the occupant who wears it. We believe the vehicle manufacturer is in the best position to balance, for its vehicles, the benefits associated with this extra protection against any difficulties related to occupants entering and exiting the vehicle. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5193OpenMr. Michael Love Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno, NV 89520-3911; Mr. Michael Love Manager Compliance Porsche Cars North America Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno NV 89520-3911; "Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your letter of March 31, 1993. You letter refers to vehicle designs which have locations which meet the definition of 'designated seating position,' as defined at 49 CFR 571.3(b), at certain times but not at others. 'For example, a seat with a folding seat back may be a seating position with the seat back in the up position and not with the seat back folded over the seat base. Another example of this could be if a platform or other device has several positions, one of which covers the seat so as to remove the necessary room to meet the designated seating position criteria.' You asked for verification of the following two statements which you believe are a correct interpretation of such a situation: When the seat meets the criteria, then seat belts must be provided according to the requirements of 571.208. In addition, those belts, since required by 571.208, must also meet the requirements of 571.209 and 571.210. When the seat does not meet the criteria, then seat belts are no longer required by 571.208. Any seat belts provided in this situation must no longer meet requirements of 571.208, 209 or 210. As explained below, NHTSA disagrees with your suggested interpretation. The term 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. In both of the examples you provide, the position would be a 'plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female.' Therefore, these positions would be considered 'designated seating positions' at all times. Even though some adjustment may be necessary before the seat can be used, the seat is available at any time if needed. Your statements also raise the question of whether a vehicle must comply with all requirements related to a specific 'designated seating position' when that position is not usable for seating. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. NHTSA would only test a 'designated seating position' for compliance with applicable safety standards when testing can be done according with the test conditions and procedures specified in the standard. While the examples you provide are not specific enough to explain how testing would be done in those instances, if a 'designated seating position' was completely blocked under certain circumstances, NHTSA would not test under those circumstances. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2656OpenMr. Charles E. Klatt, Senior Director, Codes, Legalities, Testing & Training, Holiday Rambler Corporation, 65528 St. Road 19, Wakarusa, IN 46573; Mr. Charles E. Klatt Senior Director Codes Legalities Testing & Training Holiday Rambler Corporation 65528 St. Road 19 Wakarusa IN 46573; Dear Mr. Klatt: This responds to your June 1, 1977, letter asking several question about the applicability of Federal safety standards to travel and motor homes.; You first ask whether bed sheets and decorative bedspreads shipped wit a motor home are required to meet Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. The items required to meet the standard are listed in S4.1 of the standard. That list does not include sheets or bedspreads. Therefore, they are not required to comply with the standard.; In a related question pertaining to Standard No. 302, you ask whethe 'mattress cover' as that term is used in the standard refers to the permanent mattress ticking or to a removable mattress cover. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the standard applies to both the permanent ticking and the removable cover. Therefore, both must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302.; In a question pertaining to Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, yo ask whether it is permissible to label a bench seat 'not for occupancy while vehicle is in motion' on one label or whether a seat must be labeled at each seating position. Standard No. 207 requires only one label for a bench seat in a motor home. You should note that Standard No. 207 does not apply to travel trailers.; You ask whether the NHTSA has jurisdiction over safety-related defect in motor homes not covered by safety standards. The agency has general defect jurisdiction granted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) for all safety-related motor vehicle defects. The NHTSA's defect jurisdiction also extends to the nonoperational safety of a vehicle.; In a final question you ask whether the agency has jurisdiction ove 'any motor vehicle' which is defined in the Act as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power...' Therefore, the NHTSA has jurisdiction over travel trailers that is identical to its jurisdiction over any other motor vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3944OpenMr. R. David Hawkins, Laboratory Technician, Failure Analysis Associates, 10899 Kinghurst, Suite 245, Houston, TX 77099; Mr. R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician Failure Analysis Associates 10899 Kinghurst Suite 245 Houston TX 77099; Dear Mr. Hawkins: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*. You asked whether buses are excluded from the requirements of section S4.2, section S4.3, and/or the static testing procedures of section S5. You also asked whether there are any other standards which provide criteria for the testing of seating systems on buses. The answers to your questions are provided below.; Section S2 of Standard No. 207 provides that the standard applies t buses (among other vehicle types). Section S4.2, *General performance requirements*, provides that '(w)hen tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat other than a side- facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand' specified forces. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.2. However, the driver's seat on a bus is not excluded from the requirements of that section. The testing procedures of section S5 are only relevant to seats which are subject to the general performance requirements of section S4.2.; Similarly, section S4.3, *Restraining device for hinged or foldin seats or seat backs*, provides that '(e)xcept for a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants, a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall' meet specified requirements. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.3. Assuming that a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back were provided for the driver, it would not be excluded from the requirements of that section unless it had a back that was adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.; With respect to your last question, Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, specifies criteria for the testing of school bus passenger seats. That standard is not applicable to buses other than school buses. The agency does not have any other standards which provide criteria for testing seating systems of buses.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1979OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, RVIA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20036; Mr. David J. Humphreys RVIA 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1975, in which yo request an interpretation which excludes roof vent covers in recreational vehicles from the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has receive an identical request from Richards, WAtson, Dreyfuss & Gershon on behalf of Hehr International, Inc. In response to that request, we have determined that roof vent covers should be included within the scope of Standard No. 205, but also concur that roof vent covers manufactured by the injection molding process are not susceptible to testing under the procedures found in USAS Z26.1. Consequently, we intend to issue in the near future proposed rulemaking which would establish surrogate testing procedures for this type of roof vent cover. Until such time as the new procedure is adopted, it is the intention of the NHTSA to take no action against manufacturers who do not certify that their injection molded roof vent covers meet the requirements of Standard No. 205 which incorporate the requirements of USAS Z26.1.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4628OpenMr. Robert W. Kahle 4111 Blood Road Metamora, MI 48455; Mr. Robert W. Kahle 4111 Blood Road Metamora MI 48455; "Dear Mr. Kahle: This responds to your letters to Mr. Jettner of ou Office of Vehicle Safety Standards asking about the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of an 'aftermarket' head restraint for light trucks. Your letters have been referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in responding. You ask whether you need this agency's approval of your product. The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraints sold as an item of 'aftermarket' equipment for pickup trucks. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. A commercial business that installs your head restraint would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. You ask for a copy of an 'order' requiring head restraints on new pick-up trucks in 1991. Please note that NHTSA has thus far only proposed to require head restraints in new light trucks and vans (10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating), and has proposed a September 1, 1991 effective date for the requirement, if the proposed rule is adopted. I have enclosed a copy of the proposal for your information. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding shortly. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3417OpenMr. M. S. Keshav, Manager (Research & Development), Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Poona - 411 035, India; Mr. M. S. Keshav Manager (Research & Development) Bajaj Auto Limited Akurdi Poona - 411 035 India; Dear Mr. Keshav: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1981 with regard to tur signal pilot indicators on motorcycles.; You noted that the front turn signal lamps are directly in front of th operator and are fully visible. You therefore believe that a separate pilot indicator is unnecessary. You are correct. Pursuant to SAE Standard J588e *Turn Signal Lamps*, September 1970, incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, no separate pilot indicator is required for Turn Signal Lamps that are 'readily visible to the driver.'; You have also pointed out that the motorcycle controls and display standards, No. 123, 'does not indicate the provisions and locations of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator.' That is correct. Standard No. 108 and J588e establish the requirements for this item of vehicle equipment. I enclose a copy for your information.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1580OpenMr. Raymond E. Jones, Project Engineer, Dura Corporation, Fords Mill Road, Paris, KY 40361; Mr. Raymond E. Jones Project Engineer Dura Corporation Fords Mill Road Paris KY 40361; Dear Mr. Jones: This responds to Dura Corporation's July 24, 1974, questions whethe S5.6 of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, requires parking brakes on air suspension liftable axles, and whether the 'no lockup' requirements of the standard apply to a liftable axle on a 'tandem axle rig'.; The parking brake performance options of S5.6 do not require parkin brakes on an air suspension liftable axle such as you describe. S5.6.2 requires only that the parking brakes installed on a vehicle meet minimum performance levels. S5.6.1 requires parking brake retardation force on 'an axle other than a steerable front axle'. We do not consider this requirement to apply to an axle which is not on the ground when the parking brake system is activated.; The standard's 'no lockup' requirement (S5.3.1) applies to >>>'any wheel at speeds above 10 mph except for . . . (b) Lockup of wheels on nonsteerable axles other than the two rearmos nonliftable, nonsteerable axles on a vehicle with more than two nonsteerable axles.<<<; Under this provision, if a vehicle has two nonliftable, nonsteerabl axles at the rear which do not lock up (such as an antilock-equipped tandem axle rig) it may be equipped with a liftable nonsteerable axle which does not meet the 'no lockup' requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel. |
|
ID: aiam4278OpenMr. David A. White, Senior Safety Engineer, Grumman Olson, Post Office Box 2005, Sturgis, MI 49091; Mr. David A. White Senior Safety Engineer Grumman Olson Post Office Box 2005 Sturgis MI 49091; Dear Mr. White: This letter responds to your inquiry of November 17, 1986, asking thi agency to approve an alternate location for the certification label of a light duty truck your company intends to manufacture for the United States Post Office. Section 567.4 of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places set out in that provision. If none of those locations is practicable, S567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate place to affix the label, and to ask our approval for that alternative.; You explain in your letter that in the circumstances you describe, th S567.4 locations are impractical. First, you explain, the vehicle's sliding doors make the hinge pillar and door latch post and edge too small and irregularly shaped for a label. Second, if your company places the label on the inside of the sliding door, opening the door would hide the label. Third, you assert that the instrument panel is too small for a label.; You enclose a drawing to illustrate where your company intends to plac the certification label. According to your description, the certification label will be placed on a fixed panel behind the driver, and between the cab and the load compartment. This panel is one part of a three piece assembly of which the remaining two components are a center sliding door and a second fixed panel. You state that a person can see the certification label from the driver's area without moving any vehicle item.; In directing a manufacture to put its certification label in thos places set out in S567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular design, installing the certification label as your company proposes will facilitate seeing and reading the label, while placing the label as specified in S567.4 may not be practicable or might interfere with those activities. Therefore, on the condition that your company's label complies in all other respects with S567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the forward side of the left hand bulkhead fixed panel.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3047OpenMr. Herman L. Massie, Chief of Pupil Transportation, Department of Education, Columbus, OH 43215; Mr. Herman L. Massie Chief of Pupil Transportation Department of Education Columbus OH 43215; Dear Mr. Massie: This responds to your June 15, 1979, letter asking about the use o standard production vans for the transportation of school children to or from school or related events. In particular, you ask whether a 15-passenger Dodge Maxi-Van can be used for school transportation.; Whether a new vehicle sold for use as a school vehicle must comply wit the Federal school bus safety standards depends on whether the vehicle meets our definition of a bus. Our definition provides that a bus is 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). Thus, a vehicle that transport (sic) 10 or fewer persons may be sold as a school vehicle and need not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, a Dodge Maxi-Van capable of carrying 15 persons is a bus. If such a vehicle is sold new for use as a school vehicle, it must comply with those standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.