NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam0766OpenMr. Richard L. Curotto, Treasurer, Stutz Motor Car of America, Inc., Time & Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, New York 10020; Mr. Richard L. Curotto Treasurer Stutz Motor Car of America Inc. Time & Life Building Rockefeller Center New York New York 10020; Dear Mr. Curotto: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1972. As I understand it your company purchases Pontiac Grand Prix models for conversion into vehicles bearing the Stutz nameplate. Your converter, however, has a number of vehicles in stock, the majority of which will not be converted until after September 1, 1972. You ask, in effect, that we require compliance only with those Federal standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the original Pontiac Grand Prix, and that we do not require compliance with standards which may have come into effect after that time and before completion of the Stutz conversion.; The information contained in your letter indicates that the changes yo make to the Grand Prix are confined to cosmetic changes such as alteration of the exterior sheet metal, reupholstering the interior, and replacement of the back light with glazing conforming to Standard No. 205. If the converted Grand Prix conforms to those Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which temporary exemption was granted Stutz (Standards Nos. 104, 201, 205, 210 and 212), we will consider it permissible for General Motors to continue to be the 'manufacturer' of the vehicle for certification purposes. In that case, the date of manufacture is considered to be the date of completion by General Motors, and the original certification label should be retained on the car when converted.; The vehicle must nevertheless conform at the time of sale to all safet standards and other regulations (for example, 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information) that are applicable on its date of manufacture.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam1874OpenHonorable John Rhodes, House of Representatives, Washington, DC (sic); Honorable John Rhodes House of Representatives Washington DC (sic); Dear Mr. Rhodes: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. William R. Langer, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal Bumper Standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register Notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1970 (sic) model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency sponsored studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Langer has directed his comments to what he believes to be proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face (plastic) systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3849OpenBruce Henderson, Automobile Importer of America, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1002, Arlington, VA 22202; Bruce Henderson Automobile Importer of America 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 1002 Arlington VA 22202; Dear Mr. Henderson: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning Safety Standard No. 201, *Occupant protection in interior impact*. Your specific question was whether a fuse box cover must comply with the requirements of section 3.3 of the standard. As explained below, a fuse box cover does not have to comply with section 3.3.; Section 3.3 of the standard provides that each 'interior compartmen door' in certain vehicle locations must remain closed when subjected to the specified performance tests. Section 571.3 defines an interior compartment door as 'any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects'.; The definition is meant to include such storage areas as the 'glovebox which has a large door which could fly open in a crash, and not a portion of the vehicle's electrical system such as a fuse box, which is not used as storage space.; Although not covered by the standard, we would urge a manufacture carefully to design the fuse box in such a way as to prevent injuries if it is located in an area which could be struck by an occupant in a crash.; If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5564OpenMr. Musa K. Farmand Gonz lez & Farmand, P.A. 555-B Blanding Boulevard Orange Park, FL 32073; Mr. Musa K. Farmand Gonz lez & Farmand P.A. 555-B Blanding Boulevard Orange Park FL 32073; "Dear Mr. Farmand: This responds to your letter of April 27, 1995. You letter concerns a law suit in which you represent plaintiffs injured in an automobile accident. In this law suit, the counsel for the defendant has moved to amend his answer to assert that 49 CFR 571.208, paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) requires each state to allow for mitigation of damages in any seat belt use law and that paragraph preempts the Florida mandatory seat belt law. According to your letter, the Florida law 'does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt.' As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees with you that the Florida safety belt use law is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by Federal law. Purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) Before discussing the issue of preemption, I want to discuss the background and purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2). That paragraph was added to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) as part of a final rule issued July 17, 1984 concerning automatic restraints (49 FR 28962). That final rule required all new cars to have automatic protection (air bags or automatic belts) starting in the 1990 model year. The final rule included a provision that the automatic restraint requirement would be rescinded if the Secretary of Transportation determined, not later than April 1, 1989, that a sufficient number of States had enacted belt use laws meeting certain minimum criteria to cover at least two-thirds of the U.S. population (paragraph S4.1.5). Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so, in part because not enough States adopted mandatory seat belt use laws of any sort prior to April 1, 1989. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars. The minimum criteria were set forth in S4.1.5.2 of Standard No. 208. One of the criteria was 'a provision specifying that the violation of the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate damages...' (S4.1.5.2(c)(2)). However, S4.1.5 neither purported to require nor was intended to require States to enact safety belt use laws. In addition, S4.1.5 did not require that any State safety belt use laws had to incorporate the minimum criteria of S4.1.5.2. Paragraph S4.1.5 merely provided that the Secretary would rescind the automatic restraint requirement if he or she determined that a sufficient number of States enacted laws which met the criteria of S4.1.5.2 by April 1, 1989. Preemption The Florida safety belt use law is not and never has been either expressly or impliedly preempted by Federal law. Standard No. 208 was issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which expressly preempts state laws only to the extent provided by section 30103. That section provides for the express preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards that are not identical to Federal standards. However, the Florida seat belt law is not a motor vehicle safety standard within the meaning of Chapter 301, since it does not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. Accordingly, the Florida law is not expressly preempted. The Florida law is not impliedly preempted because (1) Congress has not occupied the field of regulation of the behavior of motor vehicle occupants, and (2) the Florida seat belt law does not conflict with any Federal law or interfere with the objectives of Federal law. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0336OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Executive Secretary, Distributors Association, P.O. Box 11088, Cincinnati, OH 45211; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Executive Secretary Distributors Association P.O. Box 11088 Cincinnati OH 45211; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in response to your letter of May 4, 1971, in which you aske several interpretive questions concerning the recent issuance of regulations on Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (49 CFR Part 568) and corresponding amendments to the Certification Regulations (36 F.R. 7054, April 14, 1971, corrected 36 F.R. 7855, April 27, 1971). I will rephrase your questions slightly in order to answer them.; 1. If a person delivers an incomplete vehicle to a truck body assemble for completion, but insists that the vehicle not contain all the lighting required by Standard No. 108, may the assembler carry out the person's wishes as an 'intermediate manufacturer' under the regulations? Would identification, clearance, and side-marker lamps required by Standard 108 be considered 'readily attachable accessories' under the regulations, so that the assembler would necessarily be considered a final-stage manufacturer?; The assembler would be permitted under the regulations to put a truc body on an incomplete vehicle, without all the required lighting, and consider himself an intermediate manufacturer. As you suggest, he would be obliged to specify, in the document furnished with the vehicle according to Part 568, that the vehicle does not conform to the standards, and describe the remaining work necessary to make it conform. The lamp assemblies you mention would not necessarily be considered 'readily attachable accessories', in general this agency will leave the determination of such categorical questions up to the parties directly concerned, as long as they act consistently with the regulations.; 2. We interpret the new regulation to mean that every vehicle which i sold to the first purchaser for use must be certified. Will this do away with the truck dealer selling an incomplete vehicle direct to the user without a body or other structure on it?; Every *completed* vehicle must be certified. But an incomplete vehicl is not certified under our regulations, and there is certainly no restriction on the sale of an incomplete vehicle 'direct to the user' or to anyone else, except for the requirement for the standards information document. One of the main purposes of the new regulation is to remove artificial restrictions on the production and marketing of incomplete vehicles.; 3. If an incomplete vehicle may be sold direct to the user without final Certification, does this mean that there is no need to certify the vehicle further--even if the vehicle is completed after the sale?; To the contrary--each manufacturer of a vehicle (or a final-stag manufacturer in the case of multistage vehicles) must affix a certification label in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, this includes persons who manufacture or complete the manufacture of vehicles for their own use. The label contains information concerning weight ratings, date of manufacture, and identity of manufacturers that is important for enforcement purposes regardless of how the vehicle is marketed.; 4. At what point after the sale of a vehicle to the first user does th vehicle become classified as 'Used', and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Safety Standards or the Certification requirements?; The answer is, 'immediately after sale of a vehicle to a user', but couple of distinctions should be noted in this connection. Section 108(b)(1) of the Act predicates the cutoff of standards application on the 'first purchase of [the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment] in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Thus, there must be a bona fide sale, and the standards continue to apply to a vehicle where a person has manufactured or completed the manufacture of it for his own use, until *after* he sells the vehicle to another person. Also, the 'vehicle' in question is the completed vehicle, and the above does not apply in any way to incomplete vehicles.; 5. What recourse, other than to refuse to do the work, does th final-stage manufacturer have if the customer or user of the vehicle (1) no longer has the document provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or (2) does not wish to have the work done in accordance with the provisions of the existing Safety Standards or the Certification requirements? If under (1) above the document is not available from the user of the vehicle, is it reasonable for the final-stage manufacturer to assume that all work has been done in conformance with the Safety Standards and that he 'has no reason to know' otherwise for the purpose of the final certification (if required)?; If the incomplete vehicle furnished to the final-stage manufacture does not contain the information document, as it should under the multistage vehicle regulation, then the final-stage manufacturer should obtain a copy of the document from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The document does much more than assure 'that all work has been done in conformance with the Safety Standards', most importantly, it describes what must be done by subsequent manufacturers to conform with the standards, and may in the future contain required consumer information.; 6. Was the vehicle identification number inadvertently omitted from th requirements for the Certification label for multistage vehicles?; The need for a vehicle identification number on multistage vehicles wa not apparent when the regulation was promulgated. Since that time several interested parties have suggested that the VIN would be useful for identification of information documents that go with particular vehicles, and for other purposes related to identification of the vehicles in communications with the manufacturer. This agency is considering the possibility of adding such a requirement to Part 567.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5134OpenMr. Richard Langlais Prelco Inc. 94 Boulevard Cartier Riviere-Du-Loup Quebec, Canada G5R-2M9; Mr. Richard Langlais Prelco Inc. 94 Boulevard Cartier Riviere-Du-Loup Quebec Canada G5R-2M9; "Dear Mr. Langlais: This responds to your December 7, 1992, inquir requesting information about the agency's requirements set forth in 49 CFR 551.45, Service of Process, Agents. In a November 26, 1991, letter to you, Ms. Kathleen DeMeter, NHTSA's Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, sent you a letter explaining your responsibilities pursuant to 551.45. You now have some additional questions related to Ms. DeMeter's letter. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your additional questions. As our earlier letter explained, 551.45 sets forth this agency's requirements as they relate to the service of process on non-American manufacturers and importers. One such requirement provides that you must send a declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed and that agent must be a permanent resident of the United States. The agent may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation. You asked who could be appointed as your agent and whether we would recommend some agents or firms which specialize in this kind of service. With respect to your first question, any individual, firm, or United States corporation may be an agent provided that it is a permanent resident of this country. With respect to your second question, this agency does not recommend or endorse entities which may serve as an agent. Nevertheless, the National Glass Association, a trade association whose members include automotive glass manufacturers, may be able to assist you. It is located at 8200 Greensboro Drive, Suite 302, McLean Va 22102, and its telephone number is (703) 442-4890. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1177OpenMr. Donald W. Taylor, Engineering Liaison Representative, Volvo of America Corporation, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. Donald W. Taylor Engineering Liaison Representative Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Taylor: This is in reply to your letter of July 11, 1973, asking for a waive of 49 CFR S575.6(c) with respect to consumer information that Volvo of America would like to supply to prospective purchasers of 500 passenger cars beginning July 30, 1973.; There is no provision in the Consumer Information Regulation empowering the Administrator to waive the 30 day requirement and therefore we are unable to grant this request. We do not view the lack of this authority as unjust, given the purpose of the requirement 'so that there may be an evaluation and dissemination to the public of this information if deemed appropriate' (34F.R.11501).; We received your material on July 12, and the 30 day period will expir on August 11.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4375OpenMr. William Shapiro, Manager, Regulations and Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. William Shapiro Manager Regulations and Compliance Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter concerning the Part 581 Bumper Standard You asked whether headlamp washer- wiper systems should be removed from a vehicle prior to testing. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements.; Section 581.6 of the Bumper Standard specifies a number of condition which apply to the standard's impact tests. One of these conditions, set forth in paragraph (a)(5), is that '(t)railer hitches, license plate brackets, and headlamp washers are removed from the vehicle.' You stated that the standard was promulgated prior to the advent of headlamp washer-wiper systems, and suggested that the interpretation of 'headlamp washers' can be expanded to include headlamp washer-wiper systems. It is our opinion that for purposes of the Part 581 Bumper (sic) the term 'headlamp washers' is sufficiently broad to include headlamp washer-wiper systems.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1527OpenMr. Tatsuo Kato,Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.,560 Sylvan Avenue,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632; Mr. Tatsuo Kato Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632; Dear Mr. Kato:#This responds to your July 3, 1974, question whether th Standard No. 106-74, *Brake hoses*, labeling requirements for brake hose fittings (S5.2.3) permit labeling in addition to that required in the section.#Optional labeling is not prohibited by the standard as long as the additional marking does not confuse the required marking. We have already interpreted S5.2.2 to permit optional labeling on the opposite side of the hose from the required labeling. The required labeling must appear without additions to make it clearly legible.#Your illustration appears satisfactory as long as the '1/8' and the 'lot number are sufficiently separate for clarity. #Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4725OpenMr. Charles M.A. Saedt 9940 Springfield Drive Ellicott City, MD 21043; Mr. Charles M.A. Saedt 9940 Springfield Drive Ellicott City MD 21043; Dear Mr. Saedt: This is in reply to your letter of April 8, l990, wit respect to your intended exportation of a Volkswagen manufactured to conform to European specifications. You are a member of the Dutch armed forces, and you will be in the United States until June 1991. You understand that you will need to get an exemption when you import the car into the United States. As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you on April 10, at the port of entry you will be required to execute a Form HS-7, a declaration form covering the importation of your car into the United States. It appears that you are eligible to mark Box 12, and to import the vehicle under the declaration that you are a member of the armed forces of a foreign country on assignment in the United States. You must attach a copy of your official orders to this form. When this is done, there should be no problem in importing your car. You also represent by marking Box 12 that you are importing the vehicle for your own personal use and on a temporary basis, that you will not sell the vehicle to any person in the United States, and that you will export the vehicle upon departing the United States at the conclusion of your tour of duty. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood 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.