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: aiam0353OpenMr. Harvey P. Leventhal, Manufacturing Manager, Boise Cascade Recreational Vehicles, 61 Perimeter Park Road, Atlanta, GA 30341; Mr. Harvey P. Leventhal Manufacturing Manager Boise Cascade Recreational Vehicles 61 Perimeter Park Road Atlanta GA 30341; Dear Mr. Leventhal: This is in reply to your letter of May 14, 1971, on the subject of th effective date of the requirements for seat belts and seat belt anchorages in multipurpose passenger vehicles.; You have been correctly informed by RVI that the seat belt installatio standard (No. 208), and the seat belt anchorage standard (No. 210) are effective July 1, 1971, with respect to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. The amendment to Standard No. 208 issued September 30, 1970, required seat belts effective July 1, 1971. That standard will be superseded by the new occupant crash protection standard on January 1, 1972, but it is in full effect from July 1, 1971, to January 1, 1972. We regret any confusion that may have arisen as the result of the issuance of the occupant crash protection standard.; The requirements for seat belt anchorages have not been affected in an way by the occupant crash protection rule and it is therefore surprising to find that the effective date of the anchorage standard has also been misunderstood. We would hope that the changes in procurement schedule to which you refer would not result in inability to conform to the standard by July 1, 1971.; On the basis of the information presently available to us there doe not appear to be sufficient cause to postpone the effective dates of Standards No. 208 and 210.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4310OpenMr. Leon Steenbock, Administrative Manager, Engineering, FWD Corporation, Clintonville, WI 54929-1590; Mr. Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager Engineering FWD Corporation Clintonville WI 54929-1590; Dear Mr. Steenbock: This responds to your April 10, 1987, letter to my office asking abou the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components,* to door locks on fire trucks. You enclosed a copy of an August 13, 1980, letter to you from former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt and asked whether Mr. Berndt's opinion concerning fire truck door locks is current. The answer is yes.; In 1985, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amende Standard No. 206 to exempt doors equipped with wheelchair lifts from the requirements of the standard. However, since that amendment has no bearing on door locks for fire trucks and because we have made no changes to the standard that would effect fire trucks, we confirm that the agency's 1980 interpretation has not been superseded or revised by subsequent interpretations of or amendments to the standard.; For your information, I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No 206 and information on how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standard and other regulations.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1112OpenMr. Neill L. Thomas, Leaseway Transportation Corp., 570 Spicer Street, Akron, OH 44311; Mr. Neill L. Thomas Leaseway Transportation Corp. 570 Spicer Street Akron OH 44311; Dear Mr. Thomas: This is in reply to your letter dated February 28, 1973, asking whethe a planned wholly owned subsidiary of Leaseway Transportation Co. would be required to certify vehicles which it readies for service adding numerous components, including fifth wheels, for another company, also a wholly owned subsidiary of Leaseway Transportation Co. You state that under this arrangement title is always held by some component of the Leaseway organization.; Persons who install fifth wheels have generally been considered to b 'final-stage manufacturers' under NHTSA certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). Final-stage manufacturers, including those who complete vehicles for their own use, are required to complete such vehicles in conformity with applicable Federal standards, and to certify that conformity pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 567, 568. The NHTSA position is that the status of the title does not affect the basic responsibility of final-stage manufacturers to certify the conformity of vehicles that they manufacture.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3085OpenMr. D. Black, Alfa Romeo, 250 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. D. Black Alfa Romeo 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your request for written confirmation of statement made by Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during a meeting with your representative, Mr. Bernstein. That meeting concerned the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216 as they apply to convertibles. The discussion below follows sections 'I' and 'V' of the transcript enclosed in your letter, which involve legal questions.; (I.) Convertibles, like all other passenger cars, must comply with th automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 beginning in 1981, 1982 or 1983, depending on vehicle wheelbase size. This means that convertibles will have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and, either meet the lateral and roll-over requirements of S5.2 and S5.3 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants or, at the option of the manufacturer, have a Type I or Type II seat belt assembly at each front designated seating position (and meet the frontal requirements of S5.1 with these belts fastened around the test dummies).; In the second part of your first question, you asked whether convertible may meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. The answer to your question is yes. Convertibles are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 but may do so, at the option of the manufacturer, as an alternative to meeting the automatic roll- over requirements of Standard No. 208. Please note that compliance with Standard No. 216 would not excuse convertibles from compliance with the automatic lateral protection requirements of Standard No. 208. As stated above, however, installation of a lap belt at front designated seating positions would excuse all passenger cars from both the lateral and the roll-over requirements. Therefore, a convertible that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and that also has lap belts installed, does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216. I am enclosing a letter of interpretation that was issued last year which discusses the relationship between Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216, in light of the automatic restraint requirements.; In the final part of your first question, you asked whether you coul manufacture convertibles with fold-down tops, removable tops or removable hard-tops that would comply with Safety Standard No. 216, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is also yes. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of 'convertible,' the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, if any of the vehicle designs you mentioned meet this criteria and also comply with Safety Standard No. 216, they would not be required to comply with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208.; (V.) Section V of your transcript includes a discussion of the growin aftermarket convertible industry (removing hard-tops from vehicles) and the increasing number of kit-car convertibles. You asked about the legal requirements for these vehicles. Any new vehicle that is manufactured or assembled from a kit-car must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Likewise, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (by converting a hard-top vehicle to a convertible, for example) is required to place an additional label on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. This means that all of these vehicles would have to be in compliance with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 (after those requirements become effective).; Mr. Hitchcock's statement that removing the top of a vehicle that is i compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 would be prohibited by Federal law is incorrect. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, does provide that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and this is the law that Mr. Hitchcock referred to. The agency has stated in the past, however, that conversion of one vehicle type to another vehicle type *e.g., hard-top to convertible) does not violate this provision, as long as the converted vehicle complies with all safety standards that would have been applicable to it if it had originally been manufactured as the new type. Therefore, removal of a passenger car's hard- top does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216 since a new convertible would not have been required to comply with that standard.; I hope this letter has responded fully to the legal questions raised i your discussions with Mr. Hitchcock. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4740OpenTimothy A. Kelly, President Salem Vent International, Inc. P.O. Box 885 Salem, VA 24153; Timothy A. Kelly President Salem Vent International Inc. P.O. Box 885 Salem VA 24153; "Dear Mr. Kelly: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release as it applies to roof exits. You asked four specific questions which I have addressed below. First, you asked for confirmation that the only specification in Standard No. 217 concerning the size of roof exits is the requirement that the exit be able to accommodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches pushed horizontally through the exit opening. Your understanding is not entirely correct. The ellipsoid requirement to which you refer, set forth in S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, is the only provision in the standard that specifies a minimum size requirement for roof exit openings. Although there is no maximum size limit, you should be aware that S5.2 of Standard No. 217 provides that, in determining the total unobstructed openings for emergency exit provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. Thus, if a roof exit is larger than 536 square inches, only 536 square inches will be counted for the exit in determining whether the bus complies with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 217. Second, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 does not permit the use of escape hatches or ventilators in the roof of school buses as a substitute for any of the emergency exits required on school buses by S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. This understanding is correct. Additionally, you should be aware that the agency has a longstanding position that any emergency exits, including any roof exits, installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by S5.2.3 must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 217 for emergency exits installed on buses other than school buses. See the enclosed July 6, 1979 interpretation to Robert Kurre on this issue. Third, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 permits the use of roof exits as a substitute for the rear exit door on buses other than school buses. This statement is not entirely correct. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 requires the use of a rear exit door on all non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., except where the configuration of the bus precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. In that case, S5.2.1 requires the installation of a roof exit in the rear half of the bus in lieu of the rear exit. This substitution of a roof exit for a rear exit door is allowed only where the bus design precludes the use of a rear exit (such as on rear-engine buses). It is not an option allowing the substitution of a roof exit for the rear door in any design. Fourth, you asked whether the addition of more than one roof exit on a non-school bus would allow a manufacturer to delete any other required exits in addition to the rear door. It is possible that increasing the total exit space on the bus by adding roof exits could enable a manufacturer to reduce the number or size of other emergency exits on the bus and still comply with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2. You should be aware that exit space provided by roof exits is not counted in determining compliance with the requirement in S5.2 that 40 percent of the total unobstructed openings be located on each side of the bus. Whether this substitution of additional roof exits could be made on any particular non-school bus would depend upon whether the bus complied with the exit space and location requirements of S5.2.1 (if the bus has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and the applicable requirements of S5.2.2 (if the bus has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1542OpenMr. John Gostomski, President, Hellstar Corporation, 1600 N, Chestnut, Wahoo, NE 68066; Mr. John Gostomski President Hellstar Corporation 1600 N Chestnut Wahoo NE 68066; Dear Mr. Gostomski: This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 1974, requesting furthe information on the applicability of Federal safety standards to auxiliary fuel tanks.; Standard No. 301 does not apply directly to auxiliary or extra-capacit fuel tanks. However, it does apply to motor vehicle fuel systems. Therefore, if an auxiliary of extra-capacity tank is installed in the fuel system of a vehicle that is subject to the performance requirements of Standard No. 301, *before* its first purchase for purposes other than resale, causing that fuel system not to be in compliance with the standard, the person installing the tank or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of S108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Since Standard No. 301 becomes applicable to trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less on September 1, 1976, the fuel systems of such trucks will have to meet the performance requirements of the standard as of that date.; The fact that a customer may have ordered the auxiliary o extra-capacity tank to be installed in the vehicle he is purchasing does not affect the installer's responsibilities under the Act. he would still be in violation of Standard No. 301 if the tank were installed prior to the first purchase causing the fuel system to be in noncompliance.; Auxiliary and extra-capacity fuel tanks are not subject to regulatio under Standard No. 301 where they are installed *after* the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. However, the auxiliary and extra-capacity tanks are subject to the section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make a determination as to whether of not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect. In the event that such a determination is made, the manufacturer may be compelled to notify purchasers of the hazard.; If the installation of the fuel tank occurs *before* the first purchas of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the installer must affix to the vehicle an additional certification label stating the alterer's name, the date of the alteration completion, and that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the original vehicle, and no later than the date the alterations were completed.; We appreciate your interest. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1057OpenMr. Ralph L. Finley, 12476 Dover Court, Saratoga, CA 95070; Mr. Ralph L. Finley 12476 Dover Court Saratoga CA 95070; Dear Mr. Finley: Thank you for your letter of March 8, 1973, in which you reques information regarding safety standards or restrictions pertaining to rumble seat installation. The installation you have made and contemplate merchandising falls into the aftermarket category.; Aftermarket seat assemblies installed in vehicles, after the sale o such vehicles is consummated, are not required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. However, it is reasonable to expect that those who manufacture, sell, and install aftermarket seats will make them at least as strong as required by the standard, and will install seat belt systems to help prevent ejection and other injuries.; I am enclosing a copy of our Summary Description of Standards an Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 for your information and retention. I appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4255OpenMr. William Wallace, Assistant Manager, Chemical Commodities, New York City Transit Authority, 25 Jamaica Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11207; Mr. William Wallace Assistant Manager Chemical Commodities New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn NY 11207; Dear Mr. Wallace: Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1985, concerning how ou regulations would affect the use of certain glazing materials in buses. You explained that the Transit Authority has recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As a part of that work, the side glazing of the buses was replaced with glazing that contained the following markings, 'Lexan, MR 5000 sheet, ANSI Z 26-1, Camplas, NY.'; Subsequent to receipt of your letter, we received additiona information from General Electric, the manufacturer of Lexan, concerning the glazing material used in the side windows of your buses. According to General Electric, the Lexan glazing material used in these windows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for 'AS-5' glazing materials. The glazing material apparently was not marked as 'AS-5' material. As discussed below, if the only markings on the glazing are the markings you described in your letter, the glazing apparently does not comply with the marking requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*.; Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements fo glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as 'items' in the standard.) Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexan, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set for AS-5 glazing materials, it can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, and the rearmost windows, if used for driving visibility.; In addition to setting performance requirements for different items o glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of S6 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked with the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that 'item' of glazing material), a model number and the manufacturer's logo. The information you provided about the markings on the glazing installed in your buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.; Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to th applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, we have been in contact with General Electric to obtain further information about this possible noncompliance. Our regulations do not preclude the Transit Authority from operating a vehicle with noncomplying glazing materials, however, you should check with State authorities to determine the effect of New York law on operating these buses.; Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the agency. I you need further information, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3590OpenMr. Terry W. Braden, President, Kamlot Marketing Inc., 4311 East 104th Street, Tulsa, OK 74136; Mr. Terry W. Braden President Kamlot Marketing Inc. 4311 East 104th Street Tulsa OK 74136; Dear Mr. Braden: This responds to your recent letter requesting information concernin the type of seat belts which must be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. Your company is apparently converting these vehicles by adding 'plush' seats and a rear sofa.; Paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection*, (49 CFR Part 571) specifies that trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the same requirements of the standard that are specified for passenger cars. This would include the Ford van to which you refer. Paragraph S4.1.2.3 of the standard specifies that passenger cars must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly (non-detachable lap and shoulder belt) at each front outboard designated seating position. At all other seating positions, either a Type 1 belt assembly (lap belt only) or a Type 2 assembly must be used. Therefore, the vans that you are converting must have Type 2 belts in the two front seating positions and must have either Type 2 or Type 1 belts in the rear seating positions. The only exception to this requirement is that a forward control van manufactured prior to September 1, 1981, was permitted to have either Type 1 or Type 2 belts in front outboard seating positions. I gather from your letter that the vans you are converting were manufactured after that date and would not qualify under this exception.; You should also note that the sofa you are installing in the rear o the van would likely qualify as having three designated seating positions and would have to have three sets of seat belts (Type 1/lap belts). I assume the sofa has three seating positions since your letter states the van is a 7-passenger vehicle.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any furthe questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1407OpenMr. Joseph P. O'Sullivan, Office of the Attorney General, State of Kansas, State Capitol Building, Topeka, KS 66612; Mr. Joseph P. O'Sullivan Office of the Attorney General State of Kansas State Capitol Building Topeka KS 66612; Dear Mr. O'Sullivan: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1974, concerning th application of the Federal odometer law to certain automobile (sic) operated by the Kansas State Department of Education. The cars in question are equipped with special odometers whose use normally requires the disconnection of the original equipment odometers.; The question posed by the Department of Education is whether thi practice violates the Federal law and whether the Department must keep the special odometer in the car when selling it. Our reply is that the Department is not violating the Federal law, and that while it must make certain disclosures when it sells the cars, it need not leave the special odometers installed.; Sections 404 and 405 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act (15 U.S.C. 1981) (sic) make it unlawful for a person to disconnect an odometer with the intent to change the number of miles it indicates (section 404) and for a person with the intent to defraud to operate a vehicle with an inoperative odometer (section 405).; With respect to section 404, it does not appear that the Departmen will be changing the indicated mileage. With respect to section 405, it is apparent that the Department has no fraudulent intent in operating the vehicles with the standard odometers disconnected. We therefore find that the Department's practice does not violate the odometer law and may be continued.; We suggest that in executing the disclosure statement required b Section 408 of the Act, the Department should indicate that the indicated mileage is in error. Although section 408 does not require disclosure of the true mileage, we regard full disclosure to be in the public interest and therefore recommend that the Department also include the true mileage on the disclosure statement. By doing this, it will avoid any appearance of deceptive intent.; 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.