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: aiam0535OpenMr. H. D. Blackburn, Vice President Engineering, Miller Trailers, Inc., 333 Sixth Avenue, West, Bradenton, FL 33505; Mr. H. D. Blackburn Vice President Engineering Miller Trailers Inc. 333 Sixth Avenue West Bradenton FL 33505; Dear Mr. Blackburn: This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1972, enclosing a cop of your drawing SKB-2103B and asking whether the vehicle lighting therein depicted is in compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Generally, the location of the lamps in the drawing appear i accordance with the location requirements of Standard No. 108. Front clearance and identification lamps, however, must be placed 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle' which, in the configuration illustrated is usually the truck body and not the cab.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2508OpenMr. W. G. Whitehead, Manager, Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs, Union Carbide Corporation, 270 Park Avenue, new York, N.Y. 10017; Mr. W. G. Whitehead Manager Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs Union Carbide Corporation 270 Park Avenue new York N.Y. 10017; Dear Mr. Whitehead: This responds to your January 31, 1977, question whether Safet Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*, currently requires a border around the safety warnings that are required to be placed on brake fluid containers.; Standard No. 116 was recently amended (41 FR 54942, December 16, 1976 to specify color coding requirements for hydraulic brake system fluids and to make a minor change in the required warning label. The proposal preceding this amendment did specify that the safety warnings on brake fluid containers be surrounded by a color coded border (40 FR 56928, December 5, 1975). However, after reviewing the comments submitted regarding the cost of the proposed borders and after reevaluating the expected safety benefits, the agency has decided to withdraw the proposed requirements. The final rule, therefore, did not include a requirement for color borders.; Although Standard No. 116 does not require a border around the safet warnings on brake fluid containers, manufacturers are permitted to use a border if they choose.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4825OpenLennard S. Loewentritt, Esq. Deputy Associate General Counsel Personal Property Division General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405; Lennard S. Loewentritt Esq. Deputy Associate General Counsel Personal Property Division General Services Administration Washington D.C. 20405; "Dear Mr. Loewentritt: This responds to your November 7, 1990 lette requesting further clarification with regard to my August 23, 1990 letter to you. 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply 'to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.' In my August letter, I stated that school buses purchased by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the sole use of the Army would be considered to fall within this exception. This interpretation was based on the assumption that GSA acts as a purchasing agent for the Army, and that the buses were actually sold to the Army, albeit indirectly. In your recent letter, you stated that this assumption was erroneous. While GSA's Automotive Center does act as a purchasing agent for some agencies, the vehicles in question would be purchased for the GSA's Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS). Vehicles in the IFMS 'are assigned on an indefinite basis to agencies that have had their fleets consolidated into the IFMS.' You stated that the Army has consolidated their nontactical vehicles into the IFMS. In this case then, the GSA would be purchasing buses which are intended for 'indefinite assignment to and sole use by the Army for the purpose of transporting troops as well as transporting military dependents to and from school.' You stated that these vehicles would be manufactured in conformity with contractual specifications 'which reflect the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for buses rather than school bus specifications.' Given this clarification of GSA's role, you again asked if these buses would fall within the exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c). The answer to your question would be yes, if the purchase contract specifies that the buses should not be certified as school buses in order to serve the needs of the Armed Forces. In these circumstances, we see no meaningful difference between a sale directly to an element of the Armed Forces and a sale to GSA's IFMS intended for exclusive and indefinite assignment to the Army. In announcing this conclusion, I want to make several points. In the interest of safety, I strongly recommend that the contract specify compliance with the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended use of the bus. Also, if reassignment of these buses to another agency is ever contemplated, I would appreciate your undertaking to ensure that they would only be used for transporting adults. I hope this response is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5222OpenMr. Han Dinh Project Manager United States Postal Service 8403 Lee Highway Merrifield, VA 22082-8101; Mr. Han Dinh Project Manager United States Postal Service 8403 Lee Highway Merrifield VA 22082-8101; "Dear Mr. Dinh: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about the conversion of postal vehicles to operate on compressed natural gas (CNG). You explained that you are deciding which specifications to apply to the CNG pressure vessels on the converted vehicles. You ask whether we would recommend the American Gas Association's voluntary standard, NGV-2, or the Department of Transportation standard for cylinders which transport CNG. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or vehicles using CNG as a fuel. However, as you know, NHTSA has undertaken rulemaking on a safety standard for CNG tanks and vehicles. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993.) In response to our January 1993 proposal, the agency received over 55 comments, which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. Given that this rulemaking has not been completed, NHTSA is unable to recommend to you a particular course of action with respect to the NGV-2 and DOT standards at this time. If NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders and vehicles, the standard would apply to new products, and have applicability to vehicle conversions as follows. The cylinder regulation would be an equipment standard. Thus, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on vehicles converted to CNG fuel. The fuel system regulation would apply to new vehicles as manufactured by original equipment manufacturers or as converted prior to the first sale of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is sold, if the vehicle is converted by a commercial converter, the CNG fuel system regulation would apply if the vehicle was manufactured after the effective date of the standard and thus would have been regulated if it had originally been a CNG vehicle. With this in mind, I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from 'knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed . . . in compliance' with any FMVSS. In addition, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For further information about FHWA requirements, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4539OpenMr. Earl Dahl The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Akron, OH 44316-0001; Mr. Earl Dahl The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Akron OH 44316-0001; "Dear Mr. Dahl: This responds to your letter of June 1, 1988, seekin an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether Goodyear could engrave its mold for the Tire Identification Number with a style of characters that was not specifically authorized in the Notes following Figure 1 of 574.5. Note 1 to Figure 1 of Part 574 specifies only four different print types which may be used for the DOT symbol and tire identification number. The style of print that you wish to use is not one of these designated styles. Nevertheless, Note 4 to Figure 1 states that other print types will be permitted if approved by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). The agency has examined the print type shown in the diagram attached to your letter and has no objections to your company printing the required information in the print type you submitted. You should be aware that in the final rule establishing Part 574 (35 FR 17257, November 10, 1970), NHTSA explained that the reason for specifying only four print types which would be acceptable without advance agency approval was to ensure that the information would be easily readable by all persons. The print type that you submitted is easily readable and thus satisfies our concerns in that regard. Accordingly, NHTSA approves your print type. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel "; |
|
ID: aiam2814OpenMr. E. M. Ryan, Chief Design Engineer, Ward Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 849, Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. E. M. Ryan Chief Design Engineer Ward Industries Inc. P.O. Box 849 Highway 65 South Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your April 27, 1978, letter asking whether a sampl certification label that you submitted complies with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Part 567, *Certification*.; Military vehicles are exempted from compliance with Federal safet standards. Therefore, the application of the safety standards to these vehicles is a matter of contract between a manufacturer and the military. Since the NHTSA does not mandate Federal safety standards for these vehicles, it is not necessary to put certification labels on them. If you choose to include a label with a vehicle, the label would not be required to comply with any Federal regulations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0829OpenMr. J. W. Kennebeck, Manager, Safety & Development, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. J. W. Kennebeck Manager Safety & Development Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This is in reply to your letter of June 26, 1972, on the subject of th conformity of the Volkswagen shoulder belt/knee bar system to the requirements of Standard No. 208. I apologize for our delay.; Your first question is whether the system would meet the requirement for a fully passive system under S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.3 if it were adjusted automatically and met the frontal and lateral crash protection requirements of S5.1 and S5.2 and if the vehicle conformed to Standard 216. Our reply is that a passive seat belt system of the type you describe would appear to satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.3. It would also, however, be required to meet the requirements of S4.5.3. We cannot determine from your description whether the system is capable of fitting the range of occupants specified in S7.1, as required by S4.5.3.3.; Your second question concerns that possibility that the system could b used, with the shoulder belt either active or passive, to meet the second or third option for passenger cars manufactured between August 15, 1973, and August 15, 1975. You point to two variances between the Volkswagen system and the system contemplated by these options. S4.1.2.2 requires the installation of a Type 1 seat belt, whereas the Volkswagen system contains only a shoulder belt and a knee bar. S4.1.2.3 specifies either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly, neither of which is found in the Volkswagen system. It is our opinion that these variances are such that an amendment of the standard would be required to permit the use of the Volkswagen system under either S4.1.2.2 or S4.1.2.3.; With reference to both the passive system discussed in your firs question and a petition for rulemaking in connection with your second, we are particularly concerned with the actual crash performance of a single diagonal belt restraint as opposed to the Type 1 or Type 2 belts permitted in Standard No. 208. The injury criteria presently included in Standard No. 208 may not differentiate between restraint systems with good crash force distribution, such as the air cushion, and those such as the single diagonal belt which could poorly distribute loads on real human occupants. Accordingly, we would appreciate your sending us accident data describing experience with the European-type single diagonal belt.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3706OpenMr. C. J. Johnston, Manager, Product Reliability, The BF Goodrich Company, Tire Group, 500 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44318; Mr. C. J. Johnston Manager Product Reliability The BF Goodrich Company Tire Group 500 South Main Street Akron OH 44318; Dear Mr. Johnston: This is in response to your May 12, 1983 letter regarding the tir sidewall molding requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. In that letter you indicated that, acting in reliance on statements by a NHTSA employee, your company modified certain new tire molds by deleting the numerical treadwear grade from the sidewall label, but leaving the word 'TREADWEAR' in place. NHTSA subsequently stated, in a letter to Toyo Tire Company, that if the sidewall molded label is modified, both the numerical grade and the word 'TREADWEAR' should be deleted. You also indicated that BF Goodrich is now in the process of modifying the molds again to delete the word 'TREADWEAR'.; In light of your good faith reliance on agency statements and you current efforts to conform to the policy stated in our letter to Toyo Tire Company, NHTSA will take no enforcement action regarding sidewall molding requirements for tires produced through the completion of the mold modification process.; For future reference, please be aware formal interpretations of lega requirements are issued only by this office and only in writing. To obtain an interpretation upon which reliance can be placed for purposes of making business decisions, you should direct a letter of inquiry to the Chief Counsel's Office.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0080OpenMr. R. A. Moynihan, Sales Manager - Truck Equipment, ATECO Equipment Company, Post Office Box 8741, Pittsburgh, PA 15221; Mr. R. A. Moynihan Sales Manager - Truck Equipment ATECO Equipment Company Post Office Box 8741 Pittsburgh PA 15221; Dear Mr. Moynihan: This is in further reply to your letter to Mr. Slagle dated March 8 1968, in which you ask for information as to your company's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued pursuant to the Act.; As I understand the description of the modification your company make to trucks the only standard now in effect that is applicable is Standard No. 205, the glazing standard. Therefore, the glass that you install in place of the original glass in the truck cab would have to comply with this standard.; Your company might also be affected by the enclosed Advanced Notice o Proposed Rulemaking. Your particular attention is directed to Docket No. 2-12 which would, if finalized, make the standard concerning anchorage of seats (No. 207) applicable to trucks.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2547OpenMr. Dennis J. Mahr, Attorney at Law, 232 Davidson Building, Sioux City, IA 51101; Mr. Dennis J. Mahr Attorney at Law 232 Davidson Building Sioux City IA 51101; Dear Mr. Mahr: This responds to your February 23, 1977, letter asking whether For Motor Company's record keeping practices conform to the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; Your letter refers to material allegedly destroyed by Ford pertainin to accident and recall information involving headlamp concealment devices in 1967 Mercury Cougars. The NHTSA is unable to ascertain from the information that you have submitted whether or not Ford's record keeping violates our requirements.; The NHTSA implemented on August 20, 1974, a regulation requirin manufacturers to retain for a period of 5 years records generated or acquired after August 15, 1969, concerning motor vehicle malfunctions that may be related to motor vehicle safety (49 CFR 576, *Record Retention*). Since the recall to which you refer occurred prior to this regulation, it is possible that the identified records were generated or acquired prior to the promulgation of the regulation, and therefore, the destruction of these records would not necessarily mean that Part 576 was violated.; The NHTSA has a public file concerning the headlamp concealment device referred to in your letter. This file containing 26 pages of information will be sent to you by our Technical Reference Branch under separate cover.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.