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: 11475DRNOpen Edwin J. Kirschner, Ph.D. Dear Dr. Kirschner: This responds to your question whether school buses are authorized to load or unload school children on highways with posted speed limits in excess of 40 miles per hour. The conditions for loading and unloading zones for school children on school bus routes are not regulated by this agency. The are governed by State laws, so your question is one the State must answer. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration establishes minimum safety standards for the manufacture of new motor vehicles, including school buses. The agency has, however, issued guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs. Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" notes recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. We have enclosed a copy of Guideline 17 for your information. I direct your attention in particular to paragraphs C.2.a., C.2.b., and E.6., which relate to school buses stopping on public highways. Nevertheless, each state determines how school buses will be operated in that state. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only to the extent it has been adopted by state officials. For information on Florida's procedures for safe conduct in school bus loading and unloading zones, you may contact: Mr. Charles F. Hood Administrator, School Transportation Department of Education Florida Education Center, Suite 824 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Mr. Hood's telephone number is: (904) 488-4405. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA#571.3 D:4/5/96
|
|
ID: 11476DRNOpen Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Dear Mr. Henneberger: This responds to your request for an interpretation of the production sequence numbering requirements in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether a manufacturer must begin at 000001 when assigning production sequence numbers to vehicles in a given model year (MY). The answer is no. The production sequence numbering may begin at any six-digit number. However, when the manufacturer decides on a beginning number for a model year, it must assign numbers to the vehicles in sequence following that beginning number. You stated in your letter that you believe that Section 565.4(d)(3) does not preclude a manufacturer from beginning, in any model year, its numbering sequence at any number, provided that the numbers assigned following the beginning number are sequential for the whole model year. You provided a hypothetical example of a manufacturer wishing, for a particular model year, to begin its production sequence numbering with 300001, and to continue to assign numbers sequentially (after 300001) for the rest of that model year. Section 565.4(d)(3) does not specify that a manufacturer must begin its production sequence numbering from number one, but instead provides only that the numbers assigned in a given model year must be in sequence. As noted by your letter, the issue you raised was addressed in an August 17, 1978 (43 FR 36448) final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (which at the time, included VIN content requirements). In the preamble to the 1978 final rule, NHTSA addressed a concern raised by the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) that some members might wish to keep secret the actual numbers of vehicles they manufacture annually. The agency stated, "Since a manufacturer may begin his sequence at any number . . ., so long as the order thereafter is maintained in sequence, the actual number of vehicles produced can be kept secret." (See 43 FR 36448, at 36451) Therefore, in the hypothetical example you provide, the manufacturer may begin the production sequence numbering from 300001, as long as for the rest of the model year, the vehicles are assigned numbers in sequence following 300001. I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:565 d:3/14/96
|
1996 |
ID: 11477MLSOpen Mr. Martin J. Beckenbach Dear Mr. Beckenbach: This responds to your inquiry about whether there are any existing or planned standards or requirements that apply to automotive floormats. In particular, you asked whether any local, state, or Federal standard addresses an automotive floormat=s Askid resistancy@; its backing texture or grain; its thickness, weight or profile; its flammability resistance; or any other characteristic. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. As for existing Federal standards, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (copy enclosed) applies to materials, such as floor mats, used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. One of the components listed is floor coverings. Because Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The standard does not apply to individual components sold separately from a vehicle, such as floormats sold in the aftermarket. There are no other Federal standards that apply to the other characteristics of floor mats about which you asked. Even though there are no other such Federal standards, you should be aware that under 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121, the manufacturer of the floormat is responsible for ensuring that the floormat is free of safety-related defects. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer where the mats are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) If the floormat (or vehicle) manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. With regard to state or local requirements, you should contact state or local authorities for information about any applicable standards. The Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. may have helpful information on whether any such authority has requirements for floormats. That organization can be reached at 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200, Washington, D.C. 20005, telephone (202) 898-0145. 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,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref: 302 d:3/25/96
|
1996 |
ID: 11654DRNOpen Mr. John A. Silva Dear Mr. Silva: This responds to your letter advising us that your company is developing a product in the "automotive safety field," and asking for guidance about how this agency=s requirements may affect your product. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of equipment. Enclosed is an information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment,@ describing NHTSA=s regulations for motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Under the agency=s governing statute, NHTSA does not certify or approve products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" its products to all applicable safety standards. You did not specify in your letter what type of automotive product you plan to manufacture, and thus our guidance on our standards is limited. Please write to us again when you can provide more details about your product. If you are concerned about maintaining confidentiality about business information concerning your product, this agency has procedures at 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business Information, under which NHTSA will consider claims that information you submit to us is confidential business information as described in the Freedom of Information Act. You also state that your product may require patent protection. For guidance on patent matters, I would suggest that you consult an attorney with expertise in patent law, who can provide specific guidance about your product. If you have questions about NHTSA=s requirements or any other matter, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d:4/3/96
|
1996 |
ID: 11655DRNOpen Mr. Roger Wilk Dear Mr. Wilk: This responds to your letter asking for information on regulations Apertaining to the horn used as a warning device on an automobile.@ The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not require a horn on motor vehicles. Our safety standard for motor vehicle controls and displays (Safety Standard No. 101, 49 CFR '571.101) specifies requirements for a horn if one is provided. The horn must be operable by the driver, and must be identified as specified in the standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 101 for your information. Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For further information about FHWA requirements, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650. In addition, some States regulate the use of horns. You have provided an excerpt (Section 12-401 "Horns and other Warning Devices") from the Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance. The Code is not a Federal statute, but is available for enactment by the States. You may be able to determine whether Illinois or any other State has enacted Section 12-401 by contacting: Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 888 16th St., NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Tel.: (202) 898-0145; FAX (202) 898-0148 I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571#101 d:4/5/96
|
1996 |
ID: 11656-1PJAOpen Mr. Claude Sauvageau, P.Eng. Dear Mr. Sauvageau: This responds to your letter asking about emergency exit labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask which of two labels your client, an urban bus manufacturer, should use on their emergency exit windows. As required by S5.3.1 of Standard No. 217, two motions are necessary to open the exits of your client=s buses. The first is to pull down on a red latch at the top center of the window. The second is to push to the left a handle at the bottom right of the window. Your first label depicts only the action of pulling down the red latch. Your second label shows the sequence of first pulling down the red latch and then pushing the handle to the left. You are correct in your assumption that only the second emergency exit label is permitted. The language in S5.5.1 requires the label to have A. . . the designation >Emergency exit= followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit . . .@ (emphasis added). The word Aeach@ explains that all necessary motions have to be described. The words Aand open@ explicitly include the motion to open the window. The first label only tells how to unlatch the window, not how to open it. The second label tells how to unlatch and open the window. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at 202-366-5260. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:217 d:4/29/96
|
1996 |
ID: 11658DRNOpen Mr. Louis Kleinstiver Dear Mr. Kleinstiver: You have asked me to explain the effect of differing State and Federal definitions of school buses on the obligations of vehicle dealers. The Federal definition of "school bus" affects the scope of the Federal requirements only, while the definitions of the various States affect the scope of State school bus requirements only. The Federal definition determines which new vehicles sold or leased by dealers are required under Federal law to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The definitions of the various States determine which vehicles are subject to the State operational requirements for school buses. Under Federal law, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a capacity of 11 persons or more, including the driver. A bus is a "school bus" if it is to be used to transport children to and from school or school-related events. If a State chooses to define "school bus" to include only buses with a capacity of 16 persons or more, that definition would not affect the obligations of dealers in selling or leasing 11 to 15-person buses under Federal law. If a dealer sold or leased a new bus of this size for school transportation, the dealer would nevertheless have to ensure that the bus was certified to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. A dealer selling or leasing a new bus for school use that does not meet the school bus standards would be subject to a civil penalty. As you requested, I am enclosing two question-and-answer sheets about school bus issues, one of interest to motor vehicle dealers, and another of general interest. I am also enclosing copies of two interpretation letters. The first letter, dated December 29, 1977, is addressed to the Kentucky Department of Education, and concerns the applicability of our school bus standards to vans. The second letter, dated November 25, 1985 to Thomas Built Buses, explains that NHTSA considers a Head Start facility as a preprimary Aschool@ for the purpose of NHTSA's school bus standards. In addition, some vehicle manufacturers have written guidelines to assist their dealers to determine whether vehicles are being sold for use by schools and school districts. Dealers should contact their manufacturers for any such information. If you have any questions regarding Federal school bus requirements, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:571.3 d:4/17/96
|
1996 |
ID: 11660ZTVOpen Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui Dear Mr. Matsui: We have received your letter of March 13, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the word "replaceable" with respect to the replaceable light sources permitted by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for use in motor vehicle headlamps. This information will assist you in the development of HID headlamps. You ask whether "replaceable" as used in paragraph S7.7 means that access should be provided for convenient replacement without the use of special tools, which is a specific requirement of Standard No. 108 for light sources for the center highmounted stop lamp. The answer is no; there is no requirement that replaceable light sources be replaceable without the use of special tools. We recognize that HID light sources may be designed for the life of the vehicle on which they are installed, and, optimally, would require replacement only in the event of front end damage. However, NHTSA believes it is in the interest of safety that light sources that are not designed for such longevity should be replaceable in a simple manner. When the agency amended Standard No. 108 to permit replaceable light sources (48 FR 24690, June 2, 1983), the replaceable light sources that were initially produced had bayonet mountings, which provided positive one-way insertion of the bulb into the reflector assembly. This allowed owner-replacement of the light source, a safety benefit used in justification of the final rule: "The easy replacement of the bulb may result in faster replacement of burned out headlamps." Thirteen years later, headlighting systems have become more complicated in a way that the agency did not foresee then, but the principle of simplicity of replacement of the light source remains. If you have further questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/96
|
1996 |
ID: 11663.DRNOpen Bruce A. Zagar, Esq. Dear Mr. Zagar: This responds to your letter asking whether a public school district may use a "currently-owned passenger van" which seats more than 10 persons to transport students for school activities. The law administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) authorizes the agency to regulate the safety of new motor vehicles. The law has recently been recodified as Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code, but has not been substantively changed. Under 49 U.S.C. '30125, a Aschool bus@ is any vehicle which is designed to carry 11 or more persons and which is likely to be significantly used to transport students to and from school or related events. Thus, a person selling a vehicle meeting that definition must certify that it meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our standards do not apply to vehicles after their sale to the first retail purchaser. If the purchaser of a 12-15 passenger van that is not certified to the school bus standards decides to use the van to transport students, neither our statute nor our standards would prevent such a use. However, the states have authority to regulate motor vehicle use within their boundaries. Thus, although NHTSA cannot require the use of school buses to transport students, the State of Oregon may have exercised such authority. Your question about the permissibility of using conventional vans as school vehicles should be addressed to your state officials. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Al Shannon Oregon Director of Pupil Transportation Department of Education 255 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR 97310-0203 ref:571 d:5/17/96 ref:571.3
|
1996 |
ID: 11664ANGLEOpen Mr. Stephen T. Long Dear Mr. Long: This responds to your letter asking about S5.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, AChild Restraint Systems.@ That provision of the standard sets limits on the back support angle provided by a rear-facing child seat. According to your letter, your company, XSCI, is developing a rear-facing infant seat that can be used in the front seat of vehicles equipped with passenger side air bags. You state, AWe have consistently demonstrated [Head Injury Criterion] HIC values of less than 400 in standard sled tests (30+ mph). We believe we can lower these HIC values even more if we change the angle of the cradle back support that we currently are using.@ You ask whether your understanding is correct that Athe cradle [depicted in a sketch you enclosed] can be at any angle from 0 (upright) to 70 degrees (almost horizontal) and still be within FMVSS 213 guidelines.@ Our answer is yes, your understanding of S5.1.4 is correct. S5.1.4, Back Support Angle, states: When a rear-facing child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1 [Standard 213's dynamic test], the angle between the system=s back support surface for the child and the vertical shall not exceed 70 degrees. This means that the child restraint system=s back support surface and the vertical must not exceed 70 degrees at any time during the dynamic test of Standard 213. Your sketch indicates that you correctly understand S5.1.4's reference to the angle of A70 degrees@ formed by the back support surface and the vertical. While your understanding of S5.1.4 is correct, a few aspects of your letter should be clarified. The first aspect was discussed with you in a March 18, 1996 telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff. As discussed in that call, S5.1.1(b) of Standard 213 requires that a child restraint that is adjustable to different positions must remain in the same adjustment position during the dynamic test that it was in immediately before the test. (There is an exception to the requirement (S5.1.1(b)(2)), but it would not apply to a restraint such as yours.) While it appears from your sketch that the infant seat may fail to remain in the same adjustment position in the test, you informed Ms. Fujita that the seat back angle is Afixed@ on your system, and thus would not change adjustment position as depicted. Second, when you asked about S5.1.4, you referred to the specifications of FMVSS 213 as Aguidelines.@ We emphasize that the provisions set forth in S5 of the standard are not guidelines, but are requirements that apply to all new child restraint systems. Each manufacturer of a child restraint system must certify the compliance of its product to Standard 213's requirements. For your information, Standard 213 was amended in July 1995 to incorporate additional test dummies for use in compliance tests, along with other changes to the standard as well. Under the amendment, child restraints recommended for children with a mass of up to 10 kilograms (approximately 22 pounds) may be tested by NHTSA using test dummies representing both a newborn and a nine-month-old child. I have enclosed a copy of this July 6, 1995 rule (60 FR 35126) for your convenience. I have also enclosed an information sheet for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The information sheet describes manufacturers' responsibilities under Federal law (Title 49, United States Code, Chapter 301) for manufacturing vehicles and items of equipment, such as the responsibility to ensure these products do not have any safety-related defects. Under Federal law, each manufacturer must self-certify that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. The NHTSA does not approve or endorse any products. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:213 d:4/30/96
|
1996 |
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.