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: aiam0208OpenMr. W. B. Colquhoun, Executive Vice-President, Norton Villiers Corporation, North Way, Andover, Hampshire, England; Mr. W. B. Colquhoun Executive Vice-President Norton Villiers Corporation North Way Andover Hampshire England; Dear Mr. Colquhoun: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1970, enclosing ten copies o the Consumer Information for motorcycles produced by Norton Villiers Corporation.; Your submittal has on its face eliminated the problems that were calle to your attention in our letter of January 9. The form in which the information is presented deviates, however, from the form prescribed by the regulations, sections 375.101 and 106. The most significant deviation is the omission of the explanatory statements that are required for both types of information. The figures included with each section of the regulations should be followed closely in your presentation of the information to purchasers.; Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Director |
|
ID: aiam2720OpenMr. Tokio Iinuma, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 1606, 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632; Mr. Tokio Iinuma Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This responds to your October 4, 1977 letter asking whether Standar No. 118 *Power-Operated Window Systems*, prohibits the operation of power windows when the ignition key is in the 'Accessories' position.; Standard No. 118 requires only that power windows be inoperable whe the key is in the 'off' position or is removes from the lock, with certain exceptions outlines in S3. It is permissible for the windows to operate normally when the key is in the 'Accessories' position.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3832OpenMr. Masakatsu Kano, Executive Vice President, MMC Services, Inc., 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Kano: This responds to your letter inquiring about the test specifications o Safety Standards 203 and 204 and the New Car Assessment Program. You specifically asked about the positioning of a tilting steering wheel for each of those tests. The answers to your questions are as follows.; Standard No. 203 incorporates by reference Society of Automotiv Engineers Recommended Practice J944, December 1965. SAE J944 provides that a steering wheel is to be mounted at the angle specified by the manufacturer's 'package drawing.' Therefore, a tilting steering wheel would be placed at the nominal design position set by the manufacturer.; Standard No. 204 does not specify the positioning of a tilt wheel. I Standard No. 204 compliance testing, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance positions adjustable steering columns and wheels at the midpoint of the tilt and telescope adjustments. In the case of your particular tilting steering wheel, there is no midpoint. Thus, we would test the vehicle with the steering wheel in the position which is closest to the geometric center of the steering column. Based on the sketch enclosed in your letter, it appears that tilt positions 2 and 3 of your wheel are at an equal distance from the geometric center of the steering column. Therefore, your tilt tilt (sic) steering wheel should be capable of complying when tested in either of those positions.; The New Car Assessment Program does not use the Standard No. 208 tes procedures, but instead uses its own set of test procedures. Those procedures specify that an adjustable steering wheel is to be positioned at the midpoint of its tilt adjustment. Since there is no midpoint for your wheel, the wheel would be set at the position closest to the geometric center of the steering column. As discussed above, the agency would use either position 2 or 3 for your tilt wheel.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2370OpenMr. Kenneth R. Thompson, Jr., Vice President, Modular Ambulance Corp., 1801 So. Great Southwest Parkway, Grand Prairie, TX 75057; Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson Jr. Vice President Modular Ambulance Corp. 1801 So. Great Southwest Parkway Grand Prairie TX 75057; Dear Mr. Thompson: We have received your letter of July 26, 1976, petitioning for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75. When you forward the financial statements promised we shall prepare a notice for the *Federal Register*.; I would like to comment on two aspects of your petition. The first i that in our opinion, each manufacturer supplying you with a chassis is an 'incomplete vehicle' manufacturer as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, and should be able to provide you with sufficient information, in the incomplete vehicle document accompanying each chassis, to enable you to insure that your ambulances upon completion conform with Standard No. 301-75. I enclose a copy of a recent letter that we sent General Motors expressing our view on this subject. Since your problem is basically similar, as part of your good faith efforts to meet Standard No. 301-75 you should attempt to obtain compliance information from your chassis manufacturers as soon as you can. We would like to be informed if you are unable to obtain this information.; My second comment is that your petition presents the 'worst case approach, based upon the presumed necessity to crash test each of the 11 models you manufacture. As a matter of clarification, there is no legal requirement that a manufacturer conduct a barrier test before he certifies compliance with Standard No. 301-75. He must, however, have a reasonable basis for certification that the vehicle, if barrier tested, would meet Standard No. 301-75. Many manufacturers prefer the assurance that is provided by testing according to a standard's procedure. However, engineering calculations, computer simulations, etc., can often provide a reasonable basis for certification. You may wish to reevaluate your petition's cost estimates in light of this.; Yours truly, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3998OpenMr. Alan R. Kroner, Republican Staff, Illinois State Senate, State Capitol, Springfield, IL 62706; Mr. Alan R. Kroner Republican Staff Illinois State Senate State Capitol Springfield IL 62706; Dear Mr. Kroner: Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1985, concerning Federa requirements for safety belts in modified vans and their effect on state safety belt use laws. I regret the delay in our response.; According to your letter, a handicapped individual purchased a van an had the front seat removed to permit him to operate the vehicle from his wheelchair. You first inquired whether the vehicle is required to be equipped with a safety belt under Federal law.; This agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*, that requires the installation of occupant restraint systems in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. Depending on its seating capacity and use, a 'van' would be classified under our regulations as a bus, truck or MPV. Regardless of that classification, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a safety belt system for the driver's seating position. Belt systems may be required at other seating positions as well, depending upon the vehicle's classification. These requirements apply to any vehicle until its first sale to a consumer.; While our safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles, there ar some statutory restrictions on subsequent alterations. If a van were modified after its first sale to a consumer, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety....<<<; Accordingly, none of those commercial businesses could lawfully remov a safety belt installed in compliance with Standard No. 208, since such an action would 'knowingly render inoperative' that safety device. This prohibition applies only to commercial businesses, not to individuals. Vehicle owners may themselves remove a safety belt without violating Federal law. They would, however, have to comply with any State law on vehicle equipment.; Thus, in answer to your first question, a manufacturer of a van i required by Federal law to provide a safety belt system at the driver's position, and certain commercial businesses are prohibited from removing the belt.; You also requested our opinion as to whether the owner/driver of th modified van would be required to wear a safety belt under the new Illinois safety belt use law. We do not believe it would be appropriate for this agency to offer an opinion on that question, since it requires an interpretation of state law. You may wish to consult with the State Attorney General's Office or counsel for an appropriate State agency on the matter, as they are in a better position to discuss Illinois state law.; I appreciate your interest in safety belt usage and hope thi information is of assistance to you.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3131OpenMr. Roger E. Maugh, Director, Automotive Safety Office, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. Roger E. Maugh Director Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; Dear Mr. Maugh: Re: Distribution of Imported Vehicles Brought Into Conformity Wit Applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; This is in reply to Mr. Eckhold's letter of September 28, 1979, to Mr Vinson of this office asking for our concurrence in Ford's wish to sell 60 1978 model Ford Fiestas on the American market.; According to Mr. Eckhold's letter, 56 of the cars did not comply wit the Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time they entered the United States for use by Ford in testing and training programs. Ford represents that all these have now been brought into compliance. The four remaining Fiestas conformed at the time of entry but, presumably, because of the execution of the HS-7 importation form, were not certified.; We concur with Ford's opinion that all conforming vehicles may now b sold in the United States. However, since such sales are to first purchasers for purposes other than resale, a certification label must be attached to each that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3561OpenMr. J. F. Walkup, Project Analyst, Research & Development Center, Reeves Brothers, Inc., Post Office Box 26596, Charlotte, NC 28213; Mr. J. F. Walkup Project Analyst Research & Development Center Reeves Brothers Inc. Post Office Box 26596 Charlotte NC 28213; Dear Mr. Walkup: This responds to your April 6, 1982, letter asking whether the agency' standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, applies to after-market equipment. The answer to your question is no.; Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard and as such applies to complete vehicles. No vehicle can be manufactured unless the materials used in it comply with the requirements of the standard. The standard does not apply, however, to items of equipment in the after market. You should be aware that while you would not be prohibited from manufacturing after-market equipment that does not comply with the standard, a manufacturer, repair business or dealer would be prohibited from installing such noncomplying equipment if the installation would have the effect of rendering inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standard. Nothing prevents a vehicle owner, however, from installing noncomplying equipment in his own vehicle.; I trust that this responds to your question. Please contact me if I ca be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4070OpenMr. Robert J. Crail, Theurer, Inc., Route 1, Box 300, Helenwood, TN 37755; Mr. Robert J. Crail Theurer Inc. Route 1 Box 300 Helenwood TN 37755; Dear Mr. Crail: This responds to your letter of August 20, 1985, requesting a interpretation of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems* (49 CFR 571.121). You asked whether an extendable intermodal container chassis which adjusts to haul containers which vary in length between 40 feet and 48 feet is a 'heavy hauler trailer' as defined in Section S4 of Standard No. 121. Specifically, you would like to know whether the extendable container chassis described above must comply with Sections S5.2.1.2 and S5.3, and whether you or your customer may utilize the options available in Section S5.6 for parking brake systems and in Section S5.8 for emergency brake systems.; By way of background information, this agency does not give approval of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; The extendable container chassis trailers which you describe have brak lines which are designed to extend with the vehicle frame. According to Section S4 of Standard No. 121, a trailer whose 'brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame....' is, by definition, a heavy hauler trailer. Thus, your extendable chassis trailer would be considered a heavy hauler trailer within the definition of S4.; Section S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121 provides that trailers with ai brakes are generally required to have total service reservoir volume which is 'at least eight times the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms.' This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.2.1.2 which provides, 'However, the reservoir on a heavy hauler trailer ... need not meet this requirement.'; Section S5.3 sets forth road test requirements, compliance with whic must be certified for all trucks, buses and trailer. Generally, all trailers are required to be certified as complying with the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4. This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.3, which specifies, 'However, a heavy hauler trailer ... need not meet the requirements of S5.3.' Thus, heavy hauler trailers are expressly excepted from all of the requirements of S5.3.; Finally, you asked whether the trailer you manufacture may tak advantage of the options available in Section S5.6 for the parking brake system and in Section S5.8 for the emergency brake system. Both Sections S5.6 and S5.8 specifically give manufacturers of heavy hauler trailers the choice of complying with the requirements of those sections... 'or at the option of the manufacturer, the requirements of sec. 393.43 of this title.' Title 49 CFR section 393.43 sets forth requirements for breakaway and emergency brakes. An extendable container chassis which comes within the S4 definition of heavy hauler trailer may comply with the section 393.43 requirements or the parking and emergency brake requirements of Standard No. 121 Sections S5.6 and S5.8, respectively.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1788OpenMr. J.W. Kennebeck,Volkswagen of America, Inc.,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632; Mr. J.W. Kennebeck Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck:#This responds to Volkswagen of America's Januar 24, 1975, request for written confirmation that S5.3.3 of Standard No. 105-75, *Hydraulic brake systems*, only requires indication of a low fluid level condition (S5.3.1(b)) with the vehicle on a level surface, but that, in the event of a decrease in this fluid level (and apparent fluid volume) due to positioning the vehicle on an incline, the indicator lamp is permitted to activate and then deactivate when the vehicle is repositioned on a level surface.#Your understanding of the requirements of S5.3.3. for indication of a low fluid level condition (S5.3.1(b)) is correct. S5.3.3 requires low fluid level indication with the vehicle on a level surface, and an activation due only to positioning on an incline may be extinguished when the vehicle is again placed an a level surface.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1272OpenHonorable Quentin N. Burdick, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Quentin N. Burdick United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Burdick: This is in further reply to your letter of September 7, 1973 concerning correspondence you received from Mr. Alton R. Rau of Linton, North Dakota. Mr. Rau objects to Federal regulations which require him to purchase trucks with stronger axles and tires than those trucks which he formerly purchased.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Certificatio regulations (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568) require manufacturers to establish gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings, and to equip new vehicles with components, including tires and axles, that are of sufficient capacity to carry intended loads. The regulations do not establish the relevant ratings, which are established solely by manufacturers. We feel the justification in terms of safety for such requirements is obvious.; We believe situations such as that experienced by Mr. Rau where according to manufacturer's figures, vehicles should have been equipped with stronger axles and tires, demonstrate the need for the Certification requirements rather than showing them to be unnecessary.; The regulations apply only to new motor vehicles, and not to vehicle already in use. For Mr. Rau's information I have enclosed a copy of these requirements.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
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.