NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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.

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable 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.

More search options

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

Displaying 1021 - 1030 of 16505

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam2260 Open Mr. Sam F. Lancaster, President, Cameo Industries, Box 150, Columbus, KS 66725; Mr. Sam F. Lancaster President Cameo Industries Box 150 Columbus KS 66725; Dear Mr. Lancaster: This is in response to your March 17, 1976, letter concerning reportin forms for the mini motor homes that you contemplate building.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which motor vehicles must conform. In addition, the agency requires that the manufacturer certify that the vehicles as completed comply with applicable safety standards. A pamphlet summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification. The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.; The NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects and noncompliance with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If the agency or the manufacturer determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, the manufacturer is obligated to notify the vehicle owners and remedy the problem without charge. A copy of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, which deal with the responsibilities of manufacturers for safety-related defects and noncompliances in their motor vehicles or items of vehicle equipment (15 U.S.C. SS 1411-1420) is also enclosed. Further, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect Reports, requires the submission to the NHTSA of information reports concerning defects. A copy of this regulation is enclosed. No particular reporting form is required.; In addition, a new manufacturer of motor vehicles is required by 49 CF Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit certain information to the NHTSA not more than 30 days after he begins manufacture. A copy of this regulation is also enclosed.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3888 Open Mr. Rod L. Stafford, Fryford Corporation, 2nd Seat, 982 North Batavia, Unit B-12, Orange, CA 92667; Mr. Rod L. Stafford Fryford Corporation 2nd Seat 982 North Batavia Unit B-12 Orange CA 92667; Dear Mr. Stafford: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on which o the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering. You described the product as a 'hammock-like seat which, unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab'. You stated that you plan to sell your product as an item of aftermarket equipment and asked about the application of our regulations to our product.; If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to b installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, 210, and 302. We were pleased to learn that you have nevertheless voluntarily designed your product to conform to those standards.; As a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3922 Open Mr. John D. Dusenbury, Chief Counsel, United States Fleet Leasing, Inc., No. 2 Waters Park Drive, San Mateo, CA 94403; Mr. John D. Dusenbury Chief Counsel United States Fleet Leasing Inc. No. 2 Waters Park Drive San Mateo CA 94403; Dear Mr. Dusenbury: This is in response to your request of February 7, 1985, for a list o those states which have a sufficient amount of odometer disclosure information on the certificate of title so that a separate odometer disclosure statement is not necessary.; Please be advised that no such list is maintained by the Agency. Th applicable Federal regulation, 49 CFR Part 580 provides that State titles or other ownership documents may be used as substitutes for the Federal odometer disclosure statement if they contain essentially the same information required by paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (e) of section 580.4. It is only if the information varies in any way from that required for the Federal form that the State must obtain the approval of this Agency.; Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed State titles contained wit The Original Peck's Title Book. This book published by Stephens-Peck, Inc. is revised periodically and supplemented as changes in state title laws occur. To date, the title documents of the following states may be used in lieu of a separate odometer disclosure form:; >>>Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Soug Dakota, Virginia<<<; I must qualify this list, however. With regard to the Michigan an Minnesota letters, it is only the initial assignment which meets all disclosure requirements. Reassignments by a licensed dealer do not, as there is no space for the purchaser's signature. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers the signature to be essential because it is an acknowledgement that the purchaser is aware of the mileage. The signature prevents the purchaser from later alleging that he was not informed of the mileage or that the mileage was different from that appearing on the table.; When vehicles are transferred in North Dakota, Ohio or Virginia, th title can be used in lieu of a separate odometer disclosure statement only if the purchaser completes all information concerning the application for title. Unless the application is completed, the title will not include the buyer's signature.; In transferring vehicles titled in all the states listed above, Unite States Fleet Leasing, Inc. must retain a photostat of the title for its records. In all other instances, the company must issue a odometer disclosure statement and retain a photostat, carbon or other facsimile copy.; If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2630 Open Honorable Robert W. Straub, Governor of Oregon, Salem, OR 97310; Honorable Robert W. Straub Governor of Oregon Salem OR 97310; Dear Governor Straub: The purpose of this letter is to express this agency's views o legislation recently enacted by the State of Oregon which appears to be preempted by Federal legislation of the same subject matter.; Specifically, we understand that ORS 483.404 was amended in June 197 to require that headlamps on motor vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or; >>>'... the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption o Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts, done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both.'<<<; Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d): >>>'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.' [Emphasis added.]<<<; Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.; The United Nations Agreement, and this agreement as amended by th Canadian Standards Association, permits the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000. Further, it does not require that the headlamps be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and specifies that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, does not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that this part of the amendment to ORS 483.404 is, in our opinion, preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect.; As a consequence, it is our conclusion that any person in Orego manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing in the United States through the State of Oregon any lighting equipment that does not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon ORS 483.404, could be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A) in an amount up to $800,000 (15 1398(a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)). There is no preemption, however, of your State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment not currently included in Standard No. 108 (e.g. foglamps).; Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariabl upheld. (See e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy, 294 F. Supp. 524 (U.S.D>C. Vt. 1968), Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)). We would also observe that the interpretation by an administering agency of its own statutes and regulations, has been viewed by courts as 'of controlling weight.' (Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra, at 512.); We would appreciate the view of the State of Oregon on this subject Questions on it may be referred to the Chief Counsel of this agency, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. The Agency's position on this matter was presented previously in a letter dated May 27, 1977, From Mr. Levin to the Administrator of the Oregon Senate Transportation Committee. The Committee, however, chose to disregard our opinion, when it considered Oregon House Bill 2998 and recommended its passage.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook
ID: aiam1335 Open Mr. Charles R. Mosley, Chief of Police, Cleveland Police Department, Cleveland, MS 38732; Mr. Charles R. Mosley Chief of Police Cleveland Police Department Cleveland MS 38732; Dear Mr. Mosley: Your correspondence of October 17, 1973, on the subject of approval fo motorcycle helmets has been forwarded to this office for reply.; I am enclosing, for your information, a copy of Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 218, which establishes requirements for motorcycle helmets effective March 1, 1974. The requirements of this standard will take precedence over other standards which cover like aspects of safety, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. There will be no list of 'approved' helmets, since all helmets manufactured for sale in the United States on or after the effective date must be certified to meet all requirements of the standard.; I trust the foregoing will be helpful. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;
ID: aiam3308 Open Mr. James Tydings, Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, 1408 Courtesy Road, P.O. Box 2450, High Point, North Carolina 27261; Mr. James Tydings Specifications Engineer Thomas Built Buses 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point North Carolina 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This is in response to your letter of April 28, 1980, concernin Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Your letter refers to section 9.1 of the standard, but the question themselves are concerned with section 9.2 of the standard.; You asked whether the standard requires the use of mote than on outside crossview convex mirror on a schoolbus. Section 9.2 provides, in part, 'Each schoolbus, except those that are forward control vehicles, shall have a convex mirror...' The use of the singular noun 'mirror' means that only one convex mirror can be used to meet the requirements of section 9.2.; You also asked the agency to define the word, 'view' as that word i used in the portion of section 9.2 that requires the outside crossview convex mirror to be 'mounted so as to provide the driver a view of the front bumper...' As explained in the notice proposing the use of crossview mirrors, the purpose of the requirement is to 'address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transportation.' The agency explained that 'to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children it is necessary that the school bus driver have the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle, including the front' (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975). Use of a crossview mirror allows the driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there, before moving the bus.; The agency used the word 'view' in its ordinary, dictionary sense t mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus.; Please note that the agency's November 6, 1978, proposal (43 FR 51657 to upgrade the standard would establish new field of view requirements for the crossview mirror. If you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4137 Open Mr. Ivan Chien, President, Friendship Over Water, Inc., 8F-6, No. 9, San-Min Road, Taipei, Taiwan, REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Mr. Ivan Chien President Friendship Over Water Inc. 8F-6 No. 9 San-Min Road Taipei Taiwan REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Dear Mr. Chien: This responds to your letter seeking information about our requirement applicable to 'hub covers and wheel covers'. The only applicable requirement for those items is set forth in Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR S571.211, copy enclosed). That standard specifies that wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections. Hub covers and wheel covers that you manufacture for use on vehicles other than passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not subject to any standards issued by this agency.; However, as a manufacturer of hub caps and wheel covers, you incu statutory responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., 'the Safety Act'), even for those hub caps and wheel covers not subject to Standard No. 211. If either your company or this agency determines that some of your wheel covers subject to Standard No. 211 do not comply with that standard or determines that any of your wheel covers contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to notify your distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and remedy the noncompliance or defect. In the case of wheel covers, section 154(a)(2)(B) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) requires that, if there is a determination of a noncompliance or defect, the manufacturer must notify distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either:; >>>1. repair the wheel cover so that the defect or noncompliance i removed, or; 2. replace the wheel cover with an identical or reasonably equivalen wheel cover that does not have a defect or noncompliance.<<<; Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer of the whee covers must bear the full expense of the recall campaign and cannot charge the purchaser for the remedy if the wheel cover was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign began.; We have several regulations relating to defect and noncomplianc notification and remedy campaigns. Those regulations are identified in the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. That sheet also gives you a broad overview of our statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to manufacturers.; You also asked about obtaining necessary 'approvals' before sellin these products in the United States. For those items subject to Standard No. 211, NHTSA does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the products to be certified to a governmental entity and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States the manufacturer of the product must certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests, the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Once you have determined that your wheel covers comply with Standard No. 211, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires you to furnish to each of your distributors and dealers at the time of delivery of the wheel covers a certification that those wheel covers conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section further provides that your certification 'may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.'; You also asked how you apply for the approval of the SAE, AAMVA, an CHP. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is a private group that issues recommended practices for the design and performance of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. You are not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to obtain the approval of SAE prior to marketing your products in the United States.; You may obtain information about the SAE standards by contacting tha group at the following address: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096, USA. The group may be contacted by telephone at (412) 776-4841.; Various States may also have requirements concerning wheel covers However, section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that '(w)henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard.' Thus, any non-identical State safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211 would be preempted by the provisions of the Safety Act, making it legally unenforceable.; States do have authority to enforce identical standards related to th same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211, and some may exercise that authority. To learn more about this issue, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20036, USA. Their telephone number is (202) 296-1955. The Department of California Highway Patrol may be contacted at the following address: Enforcement Services Division, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804, USA. Their telephone number is (916) 445-1865.; For your information, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rule that apply to all parties subject to the standards and regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment subject to one of our safety standards to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of motor vehicle equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the motor vehicle equipment is imported into the United States.; The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Thi regulation requires all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this county. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. This designation must be received by this agency before your whee covers are imported into the United States.; If you need further information or a clarification of our regulations please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1765 Open Mr. Oliver C. Nusslock,Cooper Industrial Products, Inc.,725 West 11th Street,Auburn Indiana 46706; Mr. Oliver C. Nusslock Cooper Industrial Products Inc. 725 West 11th Street Auburn Indiana 46706; Dear Mr. Nusslock:#Please forgive the delay in responding to you letter of October 24, 1974, requesting information on the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, as applied to light duty vacuum hose.#If you manufacture vacuum hose for use in brake systems, you must ensure that the hose meets the performance requirements of Standard No. 106-74, as well as the labeling requirements. I have enclosed a copy of the standard, a copy of the most recent amendment (39 FR 39725), and an information sheet entitled 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations'.#The system of staggered effective dates is as follows: All brake hoses and brake hose end fittings manufactured after September 1, 1974, must conform to the standard. All brake hose assemblies manufactured after March 1, 1975, must conform to the standard. All vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1975, must contain only hose and assemblies which conform to the standard.#Please let us know if you have any further question.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam3758 Open Mr. H. Nakaya, Office Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc., 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter of August 25, 1983, requesting a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Your specific questions concern the application of the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard to an armrest.; The answers to your four questions are as follows: A) The requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements o S3.5.1(a), apply to the whole area of an armrest. In contrast, the requirements of S3.5.1(c) only apply to a part of an armrest (i.e., the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area).; B) See answer to A. C) The agency does not give prior approval to specific designs. I appears, however, that your design would not comply, since apparently the armrest will not deflect or collapse to within 1.25 inches of a rigid test panel surface without permitting contact with any rigid material, in this case the power window switch. In addition, the power window switch apparently does not have a minimum vertical height of not less than one inch. It is difficult to provide you with a definitive answer since section A-A of your drawing appears to be drawn to a different scale than the scale shown in the lower left corner of your drawing.; D) It appears from your drawing that even if the requirements o S3.5.1(b) were amended, as you suggested, to limit their application to the pelvic impact area of the armrest, the design would not comply since the power window switch area of the armrest is within the pelvic impact area. Rather than seeking an amendment to the standard, you may want to consider modifying your design so that it will comply with either 3.5.1(a) or (c) of the standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0877 Open Larry D. Wilkins, Chief Engineer, Rose Manufacturing Company, 2700 West Barberry Place, Denver, CO 80204; Larry D. Wilkins Chief Engineer Rose Manufacturing Company 2700 West Barberry Place Denver CO 80204; Dear Mr. Wilkins: Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1972, to Mr. Franci Armstrong, concerning seat belt model designations.; The intent of paragraph S4.1(k) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 209 is to require different model numbers for seat belt assemblies that differ in basic design concept. We would not consider belt assemblies that differ only in the size or number of cross threads in the webbing to be separate models. On the other hand, a belt assembly that incorporates a push button type buckle would be considered a separate model from an assembly that incorporates a lift cover type buckle.; If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contac us.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for 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.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam2260 Open Mr. Sam F. Lancaster, President, Cameo Industries, Box 150, Columbus, KS 66725; Mr. Sam F. Lancaster President Cameo Industries Box 150 Columbus KS 66725; Dear Mr. Lancaster: This is in response to your March 17, 1976, letter concerning reportin forms for the mini motor homes that you contemplate building.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which motor vehicles must conform. In addition, the agency requires that the manufacturer certify that the vehicles as completed comply with applicable safety standards. A pamphlet summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification. The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.; The NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects and noncompliance with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If the agency or the manufacturer determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, the manufacturer is obligated to notify the vehicle owners and remedy the problem without charge. A copy of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, which deal with the responsibilities of manufacturers for safety-related defects and noncompliances in their motor vehicles or items of vehicle equipment (15 U.S.C. SS 1411-1420) is also enclosed. Further, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect Reports, requires the submission to the NHTSA of information reports concerning defects. A copy of this regulation is enclosed. No particular reporting form is required.; In addition, a new manufacturer of motor vehicles is required by 49 CF Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit certain information to the NHTSA not more than 30 days after he begins manufacture. A copy of this regulation is also enclosed.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3888 Open Mr. Rod L. Stafford, Fryford Corporation, 2nd Seat, 982 North Batavia, Unit B-12, Orange, CA 92667; Mr. Rod L. Stafford Fryford Corporation 2nd Seat 982 North Batavia Unit B-12 Orange CA 92667; Dear Mr. Stafford: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on which o the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering. You described the product as a 'hammock-like seat which, unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab'. You stated that you plan to sell your product as an item of aftermarket equipment and asked about the application of our regulations to our product.; If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to b installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, 210, and 302. We were pleased to learn that you have nevertheless voluntarily designed your product to conform to those standards.; As a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3922 Open Mr. John D. Dusenbury, Chief Counsel, United States Fleet Leasing, Inc., No. 2 Waters Park Drive, San Mateo, CA 94403; Mr. John D. Dusenbury Chief Counsel United States Fleet Leasing Inc. No. 2 Waters Park Drive San Mateo CA 94403; Dear Mr. Dusenbury: This is in response to your request of February 7, 1985, for a list o those states which have a sufficient amount of odometer disclosure information on the certificate of title so that a separate odometer disclosure statement is not necessary.; Please be advised that no such list is maintained by the Agency. Th applicable Federal regulation, 49 CFR Part 580 provides that State titles or other ownership documents may be used as substitutes for the Federal odometer disclosure statement if they contain essentially the same information required by paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (e) of section 580.4. It is only if the information varies in any way from that required for the Federal form that the State must obtain the approval of this Agency.; Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed State titles contained wit The Original Peck's Title Book. This book published by Stephens-Peck, Inc. is revised periodically and supplemented as changes in state title laws occur. To date, the title documents of the following states may be used in lieu of a separate odometer disclosure form:; >>>Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Soug Dakota, Virginia<<<; I must qualify this list, however. With regard to the Michigan an Minnesota letters, it is only the initial assignment which meets all disclosure requirements. Reassignments by a licensed dealer do not, as there is no space for the purchaser's signature. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers the signature to be essential because it is an acknowledgement that the purchaser is aware of the mileage. The signature prevents the purchaser from later alleging that he was not informed of the mileage or that the mileage was different from that appearing on the table.; When vehicles are transferred in North Dakota, Ohio or Virginia, th title can be used in lieu of a separate odometer disclosure statement only if the purchaser completes all information concerning the application for title. Unless the application is completed, the title will not include the buyer's signature.; In transferring vehicles titled in all the states listed above, Unite States Fleet Leasing, Inc. must retain a photostat of the title for its records. In all other instances, the company must issue a odometer disclosure statement and retain a photostat, carbon or other facsimile copy.; If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2630 Open Honorable Robert W. Straub, Governor of Oregon, Salem, OR 97310; Honorable Robert W. Straub Governor of Oregon Salem OR 97310; Dear Governor Straub: The purpose of this letter is to express this agency's views o legislation recently enacted by the State of Oregon which appears to be preempted by Federal legislation of the same subject matter.; Specifically, we understand that ORS 483.404 was amended in June 197 to require that headlamps on motor vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or; >>>'... the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption o Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts, done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both.'<<<; Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d): >>>'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.' [Emphasis added.]<<<; Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.; The United Nations Agreement, and this agreement as amended by th Canadian Standards Association, permits the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000. Further, it does not require that the headlamps be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and specifies that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, does not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that this part of the amendment to ORS 483.404 is, in our opinion, preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect.; As a consequence, it is our conclusion that any person in Orego manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing in the United States through the State of Oregon any lighting equipment that does not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon ORS 483.404, could be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A) in an amount up to $800,000 (15 1398(a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)). There is no preemption, however, of your State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment not currently included in Standard No. 108 (e.g. foglamps).; Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariabl upheld. (See e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy, 294 F. Supp. 524 (U.S.D>C. Vt. 1968), Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)). We would also observe that the interpretation by an administering agency of its own statutes and regulations, has been viewed by courts as 'of controlling weight.' (Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra, at 512.); We would appreciate the view of the State of Oregon on this subject Questions on it may be referred to the Chief Counsel of this agency, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. The Agency's position on this matter was presented previously in a letter dated May 27, 1977, From Mr. Levin to the Administrator of the Oregon Senate Transportation Committee. The Committee, however, chose to disregard our opinion, when it considered Oregon House Bill 2998 and recommended its passage.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook
ID: aiam1335 Open Mr. Charles R. Mosley, Chief of Police, Cleveland Police Department, Cleveland, MS 38732; Mr. Charles R. Mosley Chief of Police Cleveland Police Department Cleveland MS 38732; Dear Mr. Mosley: Your correspondence of October 17, 1973, on the subject of approval fo motorcycle helmets has been forwarded to this office for reply.; I am enclosing, for your information, a copy of Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 218, which establishes requirements for motorcycle helmets effective March 1, 1974. The requirements of this standard will take precedence over other standards which cover like aspects of safety, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. There will be no list of 'approved' helmets, since all helmets manufactured for sale in the United States on or after the effective date must be certified to meet all requirements of the standard.; I trust the foregoing will be helpful. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;
ID: aiam3308 Open Mr. James Tydings, Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, 1408 Courtesy Road, P.O. Box 2450, High Point, North Carolina 27261; Mr. James Tydings Specifications Engineer Thomas Built Buses 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point North Carolina 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This is in response to your letter of April 28, 1980, concernin Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Your letter refers to section 9.1 of the standard, but the question themselves are concerned with section 9.2 of the standard.; You asked whether the standard requires the use of mote than on outside crossview convex mirror on a schoolbus. Section 9.2 provides, in part, 'Each schoolbus, except those that are forward control vehicles, shall have a convex mirror...' The use of the singular noun 'mirror' means that only one convex mirror can be used to meet the requirements of section 9.2.; You also asked the agency to define the word, 'view' as that word i used in the portion of section 9.2 that requires the outside crossview convex mirror to be 'mounted so as to provide the driver a view of the front bumper...' As explained in the notice proposing the use of crossview mirrors, the purpose of the requirement is to 'address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transportation.' The agency explained that 'to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children it is necessary that the school bus driver have the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle, including the front' (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975). Use of a crossview mirror allows the driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there, before moving the bus.; The agency used the word 'view' in its ordinary, dictionary sense t mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus.; Please note that the agency's November 6, 1978, proposal (43 FR 51657 to upgrade the standard would establish new field of view requirements for the crossview mirror. If you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4137 Open Mr. Ivan Chien, President, Friendship Over Water, Inc., 8F-6, No. 9, San-Min Road, Taipei, Taiwan, REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Mr. Ivan Chien President Friendship Over Water Inc. 8F-6 No. 9 San-Min Road Taipei Taiwan REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Dear Mr. Chien: This responds to your letter seeking information about our requirement applicable to 'hub covers and wheel covers'. The only applicable requirement for those items is set forth in Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR S571.211, copy enclosed). That standard specifies that wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections. Hub covers and wheel covers that you manufacture for use on vehicles other than passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not subject to any standards issued by this agency.; However, as a manufacturer of hub caps and wheel covers, you incu statutory responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., 'the Safety Act'), even for those hub caps and wheel covers not subject to Standard No. 211. If either your company or this agency determines that some of your wheel covers subject to Standard No. 211 do not comply with that standard or determines that any of your wheel covers contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to notify your distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and remedy the noncompliance or defect. In the case of wheel covers, section 154(a)(2)(B) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) requires that, if there is a determination of a noncompliance or defect, the manufacturer must notify distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either:; >>>1. repair the wheel cover so that the defect or noncompliance i removed, or; 2. replace the wheel cover with an identical or reasonably equivalen wheel cover that does not have a defect or noncompliance.<<<; Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer of the whee covers must bear the full expense of the recall campaign and cannot charge the purchaser for the remedy if the wheel cover was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign began.; We have several regulations relating to defect and noncomplianc notification and remedy campaigns. Those regulations are identified in the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. That sheet also gives you a broad overview of our statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to manufacturers.; You also asked about obtaining necessary 'approvals' before sellin these products in the United States. For those items subject to Standard No. 211, NHTSA does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the products to be certified to a governmental entity and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States the manufacturer of the product must certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests, the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Once you have determined that your wheel covers comply with Standard No. 211, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires you to furnish to each of your distributors and dealers at the time of delivery of the wheel covers a certification that those wheel covers conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section further provides that your certification 'may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.'; You also asked how you apply for the approval of the SAE, AAMVA, an CHP. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is a private group that issues recommended practices for the design and performance of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. You are not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to obtain the approval of SAE prior to marketing your products in the United States.; You may obtain information about the SAE standards by contacting tha group at the following address: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096, USA. The group may be contacted by telephone at (412) 776-4841.; Various States may also have requirements concerning wheel covers However, section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that '(w)henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard.' Thus, any non-identical State safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211 would be preempted by the provisions of the Safety Act, making it legally unenforceable.; States do have authority to enforce identical standards related to th same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211, and some may exercise that authority. To learn more about this issue, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20036, USA. Their telephone number is (202) 296-1955. The Department of California Highway Patrol may be contacted at the following address: Enforcement Services Division, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804, USA. Their telephone number is (916) 445-1865.; For your information, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rule that apply to all parties subject to the standards and regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment subject to one of our safety standards to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of motor vehicle equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the motor vehicle equipment is imported into the United States.; The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Thi regulation requires all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this county. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. This designation must be received by this agency before your whee covers are imported into the United States.; If you need further information or a clarification of our regulations please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1765 Open Mr. Oliver C. Nusslock,Cooper Industrial Products, Inc.,725 West 11th Street,Auburn Indiana 46706; Mr. Oliver C. Nusslock Cooper Industrial Products Inc. 725 West 11th Street Auburn Indiana 46706; Dear Mr. Nusslock:#Please forgive the delay in responding to you letter of October 24, 1974, requesting information on the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, as applied to light duty vacuum hose.#If you manufacture vacuum hose for use in brake systems, you must ensure that the hose meets the performance requirements of Standard No. 106-74, as well as the labeling requirements. I have enclosed a copy of the standard, a copy of the most recent amendment (39 FR 39725), and an information sheet entitled 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations'.#The system of staggered effective dates is as follows: All brake hoses and brake hose end fittings manufactured after September 1, 1974, must conform to the standard. All brake hose assemblies manufactured after March 1, 1975, must conform to the standard. All vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1975, must contain only hose and assemblies which conform to the standard.#Please let us know if you have any further question.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam3758 Open Mr. H. Nakaya, Office Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc., 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter of August 25, 1983, requesting a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Your specific questions concern the application of the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard to an armrest.; The answers to your four questions are as follows: A) The requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements o S3.5.1(a), apply to the whole area of an armrest. In contrast, the requirements of S3.5.1(c) only apply to a part of an armrest (i.e., the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area).; B) See answer to A. C) The agency does not give prior approval to specific designs. I appears, however, that your design would not comply, since apparently the armrest will not deflect or collapse to within 1.25 inches of a rigid test panel surface without permitting contact with any rigid material, in this case the power window switch. In addition, the power window switch apparently does not have a minimum vertical height of not less than one inch. It is difficult to provide you with a definitive answer since section A-A of your drawing appears to be drawn to a different scale than the scale shown in the lower left corner of your drawing.; D) It appears from your drawing that even if the requirements o S3.5.1(b) were amended, as you suggested, to limit their application to the pelvic impact area of the armrest, the design would not comply since the power window switch area of the armrest is within the pelvic impact area. Rather than seeking an amendment to the standard, you may want to consider modifying your design so that it will comply with either 3.5.1(a) or (c) of the standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0877 Open Larry D. Wilkins, Chief Engineer, Rose Manufacturing Company, 2700 West Barberry Place, Denver, CO 80204; Larry D. Wilkins Chief Engineer Rose Manufacturing Company 2700 West Barberry Place Denver CO 80204; Dear Mr. Wilkins: Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1972, to Mr. Franci Armstrong, concerning seat belt model designations.; The intent of paragraph S4.1(k) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 209 is to require different model numbers for seat belt assemblies that differ in basic design concept. We would not consider belt assemblies that differ only in the size or number of cross threads in the webbing to be separate models. On the other hand, a belt assembly that incorporates a push button type buckle would be considered a separate model from an assembly that incorporates a lift cover type buckle.; If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contac us.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam2260

ID: aiam3888

ID: aiam3922

ID: aiam2630

ID: aiam1335

ID: aiam3308

ID: aiam4137

ID: aiam1765

ID: aiam3758

ID: aiam0877

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?