NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam3924OpenB. Craig Killough, Esq., 14 North Adgers Wharf, Charleston, SC 29401; B. Craig Killough Esq. 14 North Adgers Wharf Charleston SC 29401; Dear Mr. Killough: This is in response to your letter dated March 5, 1985 inquiring as t whether South Carolina has obtained approval under 49 CFR S580.4(f)(1) to eliminate the odometer disclosure requirements of 49 CFR S580.4(d).; Some background information may be helpful. Title IV of the Moto Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires vehicle sellers to make certain odometer disclosures, as specified in our regulations (49 CFR S580.4). The general rule is that all information specified in S580.4(a)-(e) must be included on the disclosure form. However, S580.4(f)(1) provides that, if the disclosure is made on the certificate of title, the information specified in S580.4(d) need not be included. If the state wishes to make other variations in the information disclosed on the title, it must obtain approval from this agency to do so.; This agency has not granted approval to South Carolina for use of an alternative odometer disclosure procedures. Nor, to my knowledge, has South Carolina fully incorporated the information required by 49 CFR S580.4(f)(1) into its certificate of title. Please note, however, that if in the future the state does incorporate into its title the appropriate language contained in the regulation, it need not obtain the approval of this agency in order to use that title in lieu of a separate form.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2636OpenMr. James M. Beach, Director of Engineering, Collins Industries, Inc., P. O. Box 58, Hutchinson, KS 67501; Mr. James M. Beach Director of Engineering Collins Industries Inc. P. O. Box 58 Hutchinson KS 67501; Dear Mr. Beach: This responds to your June 23 and July 8, 1977, letters asking severa questions about the effect of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, on the construction of school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) below 10,000 pounds.; You first ask whether there are any seat performance requirements fo the rearmost seat after April 1978. The rear seat has been exempted from the forward and rearward performance requirements of the standard. This exemption was possible since there are no passengers seated behind the rear seat who could impact with it in a crash situation. Therefore, the rear seat may be positioned against the rear panel if it does not protrude into the emergency exit zone.; In a second question, you ask whether the head protection zon requirements (S5.3), as well as the requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, and S5.1.5, are applicable to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less since these buses are required to have seat belts. The answer to your question is yes. Section S5(b) of the standard states that all of the above sections are applicable to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less.; In connection with your question concerning the head protection zon requirements, you submitted sketches of the sidewall and roof structure of one of your buses. In that sketch you depict a 50th percentile adult and show the proximity of that adult with the sidewall-roof structure. You question whether a portion of the bus structure above the window is part of the roof structure subject to the head protection zone requirements. The NHTSA has determined that the portion of the interior skin that is depicted by the diagonal line connecting the horizontal roof line to the vertically contoured line representing the sidewall is part of the roof structure and must comply with the requirements of the standard for head protection.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4648OpenMr. Terry Hudyma Vice President, Engineering LAFORZA Automobiles, Inc. 3860 Bay Center Place Hayward, CA 94545; Mr. Terry Hudyma Vice President Engineering LAFORZA Automobiles Inc. 3860 Bay Center Place Hayward CA 94545; "Dear Mr. Hudyma: Thank you for your letter requesting a interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked about certification requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles that will be assembled in Italy and in Michigan. I apologize for the delay in this response. The vehicles in question will be assembled in Italy to the extent that they will be 'complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.), transmission and transfer case in Italy.' These assemblies will then be imported into the United States where the vehicles will be completed. You state that both the operations in Italy and in Michigan will be performed pursuant to a contract with LAFORZA, who will have 'complete control over the manufacturing process at all times.' It is your understanding that in the fact situation described above, LAFORZA is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore LAFORZA is responsible for affixing the certification label on the completed motor vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. You asked us to confirm this interpretation. We cannot do so. Under our law and regulations, the company that completes the vehicles in Michigan is a 'manufacturer' of the vehicles in question. The information provided in your letter is inadequate to allow us to determine whether LAFORZA might also be considered a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles. The first issue to be addressed in our analysis is whether the products in question are 'incomplete vehicles' when they arrive in the United States. An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as: ... an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle. Your letter states that the products that arrive in the United States will not have an engine or transmission, which means they will not have a power train. Accordingly, 568.3 makes clear that these products would not be 'incomplete vehicles' for the purposes of our regulations. In previous interpretations, we have referred to products that do not qualify as 'incomplete vehicles' as an 'assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment'. In those previous letters, we have stated that the assemblage should be labeled as items of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States and that the importer of the assemblage must certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. See the enclosed May 6, 1985 letter to Mr. Hayley Alexander. This finding also means that the Italian company that produces these 'assemblages of items of motor vehicle equipment' is not a 'manufacturer' of motor vehicles with respect to the vehicles in question. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5), the Safety Act) defines a 'manufacturer' as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' In this case, the Italian company producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment has not manufactured or assembled any motor vehicles, nor has it imported any motor vehicles. Hence, it does not fit the statutory definition of a 'manufacturer' of the vehicles in question. After these assemblages are imported into the United States, the operations performed by the Michigan company will transform the items of motor vehicle equipment into a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Michigan company would be a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Since 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to include the name of the manufacturer, the vehicles could comply if the name of the Michigan company were shown on the certification label. The information in your letter was inadequate to allow us to make even a tentative determination of whether LAFORZA may also be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. The agency discussed the issue of vehicles with more than one 'manufacturer' at length in its proposal to establish rules of attribution for determining which of the manufacturers would be responsible for complying with the phase-in requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). In that proposal, NHTSA said: Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . .' to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic principles of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles. 50 FR 14589, at 14596, April 12, 1985. According to your letter, LAFORZA has a contractual relationship with the company in Italy that is producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and a contractual relationship with the company in Michigan that is assembling the motor vehicle. These contractual relationships led you to assert that '... LAFORZA Automobiles will have complete control of the manufacturing process at all times.' If LAFORZA merely has contractual relationships under which it purchases products for resale from the companies in Italy and Michigan, LAFORZA would not be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles. If you can provide us with information about any role LAFORZA has in producing these vehicles besides contracting with other companies to assemble the vehicles, we will review that information and offer our interpretation of whether LAFORZA could be considered a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. Hans W. Metzger LAFORZA Safety Consultant 6323 E. Turquoise Avenue Scottsdale, Arizona 85253"; |
|
ID: aiam3477OpenMr. John Kime, Century Motor Coach, 59140 County Road 3 South, Elkhart, IN 46517; Mr. John Kime Century Motor Coach 59140 County Road 3 South Elkhart IN 46517; Dear Mr. Kime: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of September 15, 1981 with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the agency's certification requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles. Your specific question was whether an alterer has to certify that the vehicle, as altered, is in compliance with all applicable safety standards affected by the alterations as of the date of the completion of the alterations or as of the date of the manufacture of the original vehicle. As explained below, an alterer may, at his or her option, choose either date.; The agency's certification regulations are set forth in Part 567 *Certification* (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed. Section 567.7 of the regulation applies to persons who alter certified vehicles. Section 567.7 specifies the content of the certification statement that must be affixed to the vehicle by the alterer. The portion of the regulation pertinent to your question is section 567.7(a) which provides that the alterer must state:; >>>'This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) i (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alterations and in effect in (month, year).' The second date shall be no earlier than the manufacturing date of the original vehicle, and no later than the date alterations were completed....<<<; Thus, the regulation allows an alterer the option of choosing eithe the date of original manufacture or the date of completion of the alterations as the date for determining which safety standards apply.; As you requested, I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*. Section 4.2.2 specifies the requirements applicable to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1976.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4218OpenMr. Edward T. Fennell, Jr., Amilite Corporate, 666 Old Country Road, Garden City, NY 11530; Mr. Edward T. Fennell Jr. Amilite Corporate 666 Old Country Road Garden City NY 11530; Dear Mr. Fennell: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1986, concerning the markin requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. You explained that your company represents several glazing manufacturers that make windshields. You said that your company sometimes receives orders from other companies asking to have a windshield made for them with their own corporate logo marked on the windshield. You asked if a company can, with the permission of the other company, mark a windshield with the other company's logo and its own DOT identification number. As discussed below, such a practice is permissible.; Section 6 of Standard No. 205 sets forth the certification and markin requirements for glazing materials. Section 6.1 requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material in accordance with section 6 of American National Standard 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (ANS Z-26). One of the requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26 is that a manufacturer mark its glazing with its own 'distinctive designation or trademark.' In addition to those requirements, S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material designed to be used in a specific vehicle with the symbol 'DOT' and a manufacturer code mark assigned by this agency. The standard defines a prime glazing manufacturer as 'one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.'; One reason for the marking requirements of Standard No. 205 is to ai the agency in identifying the actual manufacturer of the glazing for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Since, in the situation you described, the prime glazing manufacturer will be placing its own DOT code mark on the glazing, the agency's ability to identify easily and accurately the manufacturer of the glazing will not be impaired. Therefore, we would not consider the use of another manufacturer's logo on the glazing to be a violation of the standard as long as the prime glazing manufacturer has marked the glazing with its own DOT code mark.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3027OpenMr. Troy Martin, Chief of Specifications, State Board of Control, 111 East 17th Street, Austin, TX 78711; Mr. Troy Martin Chief of Specifications State Board of Control 111 East 17th Street Austin TX 78711; Dear Mr. Martin: This confirms your May 23, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of m staff in which you asked whether it is permissible for vehicles to be modified by the addition of propane gas systems replacing their regular fuel systems.; As Mr. Tilton stated, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration permits the type of modification mentioned above. If the modification is done to a new vehicle, the person making the modification would be required to attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, *Certification*, of our regulations. That label states that the vehicle, *as altered*, continues to comply with all safety standards. The standard that may be affected by such a modification would be Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. If used vehicles are being modified, the person modifying the vehicle would not be required to attach a label. However, that person would be responsible for noncompliance with safety standards if he or she knowingly rendered inoperative any element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4832OpenMr. Billy S. Peterson President Automotive Safety Testing, Inc. at TRC of Ohio, Bldg. 20 Rd. 152 & SR 33 East Liberty, OH 43319; Mr. Billy S. Peterson President Automotive Safety Testing Inc. at TRC of Ohio Bldg. 20 Rd. 152 & SR 33 East Liberty OH 43319; Dear Mr. Peterson: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, l99l to the Office of Chief Counsel asking for a clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars. One of your clients wishes to mount 'two-part' stop/tail lamps 'so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid.' Each part of the two-part lamp is a combination tail/stop lamp. You have asked whether the minimum photometric requirements must be met by 'the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted on the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements.' Your 'two-part lamp' would be treated as two separate lamps. For purposes of compliance, only one of these two adjacent lamps must be designed to conform to Standard No. 108, and this conformance must be independent of any 'contribution' by the adjacent lamp. Although Standard No. 108 permits either the deck or the body mounted lamp to be the complying lamp, it would be our preference that the body mounted lamp be the one that complies, so that the benefit of a conforming stop/tail lamp would be realized during those occasions when the lid may be raised. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0522OpenMr. T. E. Needham, Engineering Department, Mechanisms Division, Amington Road, Birmingham B25 8EW, England; Mr. T. E. Needham Engineering Department Mechanisms Division Amington Road Birmingham B25 8EW England; Dear Mr. Needham: Your letter of November 4, 1971, concerning the compliance of two dua rear door locking systems with Standard 206, has been forwarded to this office for reply.; Both systems consist of >>>'. . . a primary locking system which when engaged renders th outside rear door handle and the inside rear door handle inoperative and a special locking device accessible from the door shut face, which when engaged renders the inside door handle inoperative but does not affect the outside door handle.'<<<; The systems differ in that engagement of the special locking device i the first system prevents the engagement of the primary locking system, while engagement of the special device in the second system does not have this effect.; As stated in the preamble to the April 27, 1968 amendment (33 F.R 6465) to the standard, S4.1.3 does not preclude the installation of a special locking mechanism in addition to the required locking mechanism. However, the required locking mechanism must be engageable or disengageable regardless of whether any additional locking mechanism is engaged or disengaged. If the special locking mechanism does not interfere with the operation of the required locking mechanism, it will not constitute a failure to comply with the standard.; Under these criteria, the first dual system would not comply with th standard since engagement of the special locking mechanism would interfere with the operation of the primary locking mechanism.; The second dual system would comply if engagement of the specia locking mechanism would prevent neither the engagement nor the disengagement of the primary locking mechanism.; Please write if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0488OpenMr. Paul Wilson, Truck Trailer Manufacturers' Association; Mr. Paul Wilson Truck Trailer Manufacturers' Association; Telephone call from TTMA re GVWR This is a memorandum of a telephone conversation that I had with Mr Paul Wilson of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers' Association on November 19, 1971.; Mr. Wilson asked how the GAWR and GVWR requirements of the ne Certification regulations would apply to semitrailers with sliding rear axle bogies (sic). He said that he saw a danger that if the GVWR of a semitrailer were based on the load that could be carried with the rear axle in the rearmost position (the maximum load condition if the rear axle is the limiting factor), there was a possibility that the user would overload the axle by loading to that capacity with the axle in a more forward position. Conversely, if the GVWR were stated at a lower figure based on the axle in the forwardmost position, the actual capacity of the trailer would be understated.; I told Mr. Wilson that, with or without the new regulations, th situation obviously required the furnishing of specific instructions to the truck users, beyond any figures for GVWR and GAWR. The NHTSA, I said, did not restrict the furnishing of this information, either by label or in printed manual form, except that extraneous material should not be placed in the midst of the required information on the label. I also said that the GVWR could be lower than the sum of the axle ratings and the capacity at the kingpin.; Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5370OpenMr. James Schaub Midas Muffler Shop 180 Gause Blvd. Slidell, LA 70458; Mr. James Schaub Midas Muffler Shop 180 Gause Blvd. Slidell LA 70458; "Dear Mr. Schaub: This responds to your letter asking us about Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles. While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors. With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows: (f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . . This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area. The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation. We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
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.