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: aiam4068OpenThe Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 380 Alvarado Street, Monterey, CA 93940; The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member U.S. House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey CA 93940; Dear Mr. Panetta: This responds to your request that we review the concerns expressed b one of your constituents, Mr. Joseph Loschiavo, about certain van seats. According to Mr. Loschiavo, the Monterey County Van Program for senior citizens uses vans with seats that are very low and close together, making it difficult for persons to get up out of the seats. He suggested that either the seats be raised about eight inches or that special seats be provided for persons who have problems with the present seats.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues moto vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, establishes requirements to minimize the possibility of seat failure during vehicle collisions. However, NHTSA does not have any standards concerning the height or spacing of van seats.; The Monterey County Van Program has several options in obtaining van with appropriate seating. In purchasing new vans, the Program may either select from among the variety of vans offered by the major vehicle manufacturers, or go to one of a number of companies that customize vans to purchasers' specifications. A number of companies also modify used vehicles.; We note that new vans, including vans which are modified prior to firs sale, are required to be certified to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The specific certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*. If a used vehicle is modified by a business such as a garage, the business is not required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, if a business replaced a van's existing seats with higher seats, it would need to make sure that it was not rendering inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4592OpenMr. James R. Tomaino Youngstown Rubber Products Company 854 Mahoning Avenue P.O. Box 1377 Youngstown, OH 44501-1377; Mr. James R. Tomaino Youngstown Rubber Products Company 854 Mahoning Avenue P.O. Box 1377 Youngstown OH 44501-1377; "Dear Mr. Tomaino: This responds to your January 30, 1989 letter askin whether a 'permanently embossed raised dot' on your air brake hose assembly satisfies the requirement in Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for a manufacturer identification. As explained below, we believe that use of the raised dot may be potentially confusing, since it isn't readily apparent whether the mark represents an intentional effort to identify the manufacturer of the assembly or is an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process. By way of background, Standard No. 106 sets forth two methods of labeling air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. S7.2.3 states that these assemblies must be labeled by means of a band around the assembly or, at the option of the assembly manufacturer, by means of marking at least one end fitting as described in S7.2.3.1. You have asked us about the labeling requirements under the second option. Since, for reasons of drafting convenience, the second option incorporates the portions of the first option relating to the nature of and filing of the designation, it is necessary to begin with a discussion of the first option. The first option (S7.2.3(b)) provides that the band must be marked with information including: A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol. (Emphasis added.) The second option (S7.2.3.1) requires assemblies to be 'etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b).' (Emphasis added.) The concluding language, 'in accordance with S7.2.3(b),' modifies both of the preceding clauses, i.e., both 'identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly' and 'is filed.' Thus, the identification provided in compliance with the second option 'may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.' Since the raised dot is clearly neither a block capital letter or a numeral, the issue is whether it can be considered a symbol. The dictionary defines 'symbol,' for the purposes relevant to your inquiry, as follows: 'something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental but not intentional resemblance.' (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) The agency concludes that the dot is not a symbol because it is not readily apparent that the raised dot stands for or suggests anything. Instead, the dot appears to be only an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process. Manufacturer identification is crucial for the enforcement of Standard No. 106's requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies. We urge you to use a more distinctive mark to identify your company as the manufacturer of the assembly. To assist you, and in response to your March 17 telephone request, we are enclosing examples of designations which manufacturers of brake hoses, fittings and assemblies have registered with NHTSA. These examples should be helpful in providing ideas for another designation. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Attachment"; |
|
ID: aiam3257OpenMr. Frank J. Douthitt, Douthitt, Mitchell & Paul, P.O. Box 549, 201 N. Bridge Street, Henrietta, TX 76365; Mr. Frank J. Douthitt Douthitt Mitchell & Paul P.O. Box 549 201 N. Bridge Street Henrietta TX 76365; Dear Mr. Douthitt: This responds to your March 19, 1980, letter asking whether it is lega for a manufacturer to build a chassis that would normally have a high gross axle weight rating (GAWR) while continuing to certify the combined axle and chassis to a lower GAWR and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The answer to your question is yes.; The chassis-cab manufacturer and the final-stage manufacturer whe certifying the proper GVWR and GAWR must consider the entire vehicle and its capacity to sustain the load for which it is designed. Therefore, if a manufacturer installs a heavy axle but does not reinforce the frame to correspond with the heavier axle, it must select a GVWR that reflects the capacity of the weaker frame rather than the stronger axle. The GAWR can be any amount appropriate for a given axle without regard to the vehicle's GVWR, provided the sum total of the Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWR) is not less than the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR).; Your problem arises because the contract for purchase of th chassis-cab specified only the GAWR without insisting that the GVWR be similarly increased. This is entirely a private contractual matter and no Federal regulation of which we are aware has been violated.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4438OpenMr. Edgar G. Meyer Bureau of Economic Analysis Florida Department of Commerce 407 Fletcher Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-2000; Mr. Edgar G. Meyer Bureau of Economic Analysis Florida Department of Commerce 407 Fletcher Building Tallahassee FL 32399-2000; Dear Mr. Meyer: This responds to your November 24, l987 letter askin about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to the manufacture of automobile seat cushions and seat backs. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible if the fabric (i.e., felt) from which the seat cushions and seat backs would be manufactured were made from 'old clothes and rags.' Standard No. 302 neither specifies nor prohibits any particular type of raw material used to manufacture seat backs and seat cushions. The felt must meet the flammability requirements of the standard if it is used for cushions and seat backs for new motor vehicles. Also, felt used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs for new and used motor vehicles must contain no safety related defects. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations require manufacturers of new motor vehicles to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Thus, any person manufacturing a new vehicle with seat backs and seat cushions made from the felt material you described must ensure that the seat backs and cushions possess the burn resistance characteristics required by Standard No. 302. If the felt can meet those requirements, it may be used in new motor vehicles in satisfaction of Standard No. 302, regardless of the felt's raw materials. The felt manufacturer should also be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act requires all vehicle and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products contain no defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined by the manufacturer or this agency that the seat cushions and seat backs had a safety related defect, all purchasers of the vehicle containing the defective equipment would have to be notified and the defective item repaired or replaced without charge. If the felt material is used to manufacture items of motor vehicle equipment that are sold to vehicle owners for use in used vehicles (i.e., vehicles previously purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale), the felt need not meet Standard No. 302. In general, it would not violate Standard No. 302 to add aftermarket seat cushions to used vehicles, even if the addition of the seat cushions caused the vehicles to no longer comply with the standard. This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section specifies: '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 ...' The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, any person in the aforementioned categories that installed a seat cushion which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating a section 108(a)(2)(A). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $l,000 for each violation of section 108. Again, the manufacturer of the aftermarket seat cushions would be obligated to recall and remedy cushions that are determined to contain a safety related defect, even if the cushions were installed by the vehicle owners themselves. You asked about other Federal laws that might have a bearing on the manufacture of the felt material. You might wish to contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at (202) 523-8148 and the Environmental Protection Agency at (202) 475-8040 for information about the applicability of any of their statutes and regulations. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2915OpenMr. James Tydings, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. James Tydings Thomas Built Buses Inc. P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your November 7, 1978, question whether the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) October 13, 1978, interpretation of the Ninth Circuit air brake ruling has revoked the exclusion of school buses from the 'no lockup' requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. You also ask if a bus which is designed identically to a school bus qualifies for the exclusion from 'no lockup' requirements if it is purchased and used for a purpose other than as a school bus.; The answer to the first question is no. The exclusion of school buse from the stopping distance requirements of Standard No. 121 (S5.3.1) remains in effect and was not altered by the October 13, 1978, interpretation.; The answer to the second question is also no. The exclusion fro service brake stopping distance requirements (including the 'no lockup' requirement) is limited to school buses, which are defined at 49 CFR S 571.3 as follows:; >>>'School bus' means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstat 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.<<<; The buses you describe would not qualify as 'sold ... for purposes tha include carrying students to and from school or related events.' Therefore, they would not qualify for the school bus exclusion.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0928OpenMr. Hilman Meyer, Kettler of America, Inc., 380 Franklin Turnpike, Mahwah, NJ 07430; Mr. Hilman Meyer Kettler of America Inc. 380 Franklin Turnpike Mahwah NJ 07430; Dear Mr. Meyer: A review of correspondence we sent you on October 6, 1972, (in respons to your letter of September 26, 1972, concerning child seating systems you plan to import), has revealed that one statement we made should be clarified.; In the second paragraph of our letter we stated that each 'seat must b labeled or tagged with a certification that it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.' Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), which applies to child seating systems, does require each child seating system to be labeled with information regarding its safe use, and we refer you to the standard for these requirements. However, with respect to certification, manufacturers are not limited to the method specified in our October 6, 1972, letter (viz., attaching a label to the seat), but may certify in other ways as well. For example, Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), on which the certification requirement is based, states that the certification may also be placed on the outside of the container in which the item is delivered.; We regret that our former letter was incomplete in this regard. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3607OpenMr. Donald J. Cameron, Director - Technical Support, New York City Transit Authority, 25 Jamaica Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11207; Mr. Donald J. Cameron Director - Technical Support New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn NY 11207; Dear Mr. Cameron: This responds to your recent letter asking whether the driver's sid window and the front entrance door window of a bus may be equipped with plastic glazing. You desire to use plastics because of the high operating cost of replacing broken glass windows.; The answer to your question is no. Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazin Materials*, was amended in 1977 to permit the use of rigid plastic glazing in all doors and windows of buses, *except* windshields or windows to the immediate right or left of the driver (42 FR 61465). The reason for this exception is that windows to the immediate right and left of the driver are necessary for driving visibility and typical plastic material used alone is not sufficiently resistant to abrasion. Plastic glazing would not be allowed in a bus entrance door since this would constitute a window to the immediate right' of the driver. Plastic glazing would be allowed in the rear emergency door, however, if that door was not necessary for driving visibility.; You also ask whether material other than safety glass may be used i either of these locations. I am not sure that I correctly understand your question. If by other materials' you mean, for example, sheet metal, the answer to your question would be yes. There are no Federal requirements specifying that a vehicle have windows in a certain location. Thus, theoretically, there would be nothing to preclude the installation of a solid metal entrance door in a bus. (Obviously, no manufacturer would likely do this because it would compromise driver vision.) If, however, there is a window and it is equipped with traditional glazing materials, the glazing must be in compliance with the performance and location requirements of Standard No. 205. If I have misunderstood your last question, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff and he will clarify the requirements for you (202- 426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5100OpenMr. Robert F. Gayer Equipment Coordinator Transportation Services Salt River Project P.O. Box 52025 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2025; Mr. Robert F. Gayer Equipment Coordinator Transportation Services Salt River Project P.O. Box 52025 Phoenix AZ 85072-2025; "Dear Mr. Gayer: This responds to your letter asking whether certai trailers, manufactured in 1989, were required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. (49 CFR 571.121). You explained that you disagree with statements by the trailers' manufacturer that 'these trailers do not need to comply with `121,' because they are `Heavy Haul Trailers.'' You further stated that the trailers may not comply with certain provisions in Standard No. 121, including the reservoir requirements in S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.5. I note that we previously responded to a similar letter from Salt River Project concerning certain trailers manufactured in 1987. Our letter (copy enclosed) was sent to Mr. Derral T. Crance on April 3, 1989. We explained that heavy hauler trailers are not excepted from Standard No. 121 unless they have a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds. Since you indicated that the trailers of current concern have a GVWR of 68,000 pounds, they would not be excepted from the standard as heavy hauler trailers. Moreover, the trailers do not appear to come within any of the other exceptions to Standard No. 121. Standard No. 121 does, however, include a number of special provisions for heavy hauler trailers, including exceptions from certain requirements. Of particular note, S5.6 sets forth a number of specific parking brake requirements but permits heavy hauler trailers to meet the requirements of either that section, or, at the option of the manufacturer, the requirements of 49 CFR 393.43. Part 393 requires commercial motor vehicles to be equipped with various types of equipment, including brakes. Specifically, section 393.43 addresses brake requirements in breakaway and emergency braking situations. Heavy hauler trailers manufactured in 1989 were generally subject to sections S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, the provisions about which you specifically asked. Under S5.2.1.1, a reservoir was required to be provided that is capable of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system. Under S5.2.1.5, each service reservoir was required to be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices. Notwithstanding the general applicability of S5.2.1.1, certain heavy hauler trailers which complied with the requirements of 49 CFR 393.43 instead of the specific parking brake requirements set forth in S5.6 would not have had to comply with S5.2.1.1. This is so because the vehicle is not required to have parking brakes. However, a braking system is required which applies automatically and promptly upon breakaway from a towing vehicle. Such a vehicle would also be required to carry sufficient chocking blocks to prevent movement when parked, as required by 393.41. Since your letter suggests that you purchased trailers that may not have complied with Standard No. 121, I have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0302OpenTakashi Nakajima, Representative, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, Detroit Liaison Office, Suite 410 Trowell Building, 24681 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, MI 48075; Takashi Nakajima Representative Mitsubishi Motors Corporation Detroit Liaison Office Suite 410 Trowell Building 24681 Northwestern Highway Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Nakajima: Thank you for your letter of February 17, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W. Toms regarding positioning of the anthropomorphic test devices for use in the crashes described in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.; I am enclosing a copy of the newly revised version of the standard a well as an accompanying press release.; In regard to your specific inquiry, Standard No. 208 does not contai specifications for the alignment of the dummy's head once positioned in the vehicle. Paragraphs S3.1.11(b) through (e) specify the procedure for positioning the dummy in the vehicle seat. If the procedures in S8.1.11 are followed as specified, the dummy's neck and head may actually be inclined because of contact with the roof or other vehicle components.; Thank you for your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs. Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2295OpenMr. Mike Watson, Southside Datsun, 3139 Peach Orchard Road, Augusta, GA 30906; Mr. Mike Watson Southside Datsun 3139 Peach Orchard Road Augusta GA 30906; Dear Mr. Watson: I am writing to confirm your April 29, 1976, telephone conversatio with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the modification work that you perform on Datsun pick- up trucks. I understand that this modification involves removal of the body from a fully certified truck and replacement of the body with a flat bed.; You are a vehicle alterer who is subject to the requirements of 49 CF S 567.7 (copy enclosed). That section requires that you affix a label to the vehicle stating that, *as altered*, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If any of the original vehicle's weight ratings are affected by the modification, the modified weight ratings must also appear on this label. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, 'Gross Vehicle Weight Rating' is defined in 49 CFR S 571.3 as:; >>>the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of single vehicle.<<<; One constraint on this specification is found in S 567.4(g)(3) of 4 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, which requires that the GVWR; >>>shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rate cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. . . .<<<; 'Gross Axle Weight Rating' is defined as: >>>the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.<<<; As one who alters completed vehicles but does not otherwise manufactur motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that is subject to a safety standard, you are not required to submit the information specified in 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*.; Enclosed for your convenience is an information sheet entitled 'Wher to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.' If you have any further questions, please feel free to write.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, 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.