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: aiam2106OpenMr. Mitsuru Masada, Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd., No. 10 Mori Bldg. 28, Sakuragawa-Cho Nishikubo Shiba, Minato-Ku Tokyo, Japan 105; Mr. Mitsuru Masada Takata Kojyo Co. Ltd. No. 10 Mori Bldg. 28 Sakuragawa-Cho Nishikubo Shiba Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan 105; Dear Mr. Masada: This responds to Takata Kojyo's October 1, 1975, questions whether Type 2 seat belt assembly with non-detachable shoulder belt (1) may be labeled in accordance with S4.1(k) of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, in only one location on either the upper torso or pelvic portion (A-I), (2) must be submitted (with the labeling modification) to a test laboratory or other facility as the basis for continued certification to the standard (A-II), (3) must be retested after a change is made to webbing length as the basis for continued certification to the standard (B-I), and (4), if testing is not required, must be submitted to a test laboratory or other facility as the basis for continued certification to the standard (B-II).; One label on either portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly wit non-detachable shoulder belt may be used to satisfy the requirement of S4.1(k) of Standard No. 209.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 e seq.) requires manufacturers,(sic) to produce products covered by standards in compliance with those standards, as set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and to certify the products. It leaves the choice of testing methods up to the manufacturers. The NHTSA does not require retesting or submission to test laboratories as a basis for certification. A company like yours is free to choose any method that assures you that your products will conform if they are tested by the NHTSA as specified in the standard. This may take the form of tests, engineering calculations, or other means necessary to provide this assurance.; The answers given above pertain only to the Federal requirements fo seat belts. It may be necessary to contact other regulatory authorities as to the effect of these changes under their regulations.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0091OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning requirements for combination clearance and side marker lamps.; Paragraph S3.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 permits th combination of two or more lamps providing the requirements for each are met. Table I in SAE Standard J592b gives the photometric requirements for both the clearance and side marker lamps, and Section J of the Standard permits their combination providing the combination complies with both clearance and side marker minimum candlepower requirements. Section J also defines the H-V axis of the combination as parallel with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle when checking clearance lamp test points, and normal to this vehicle axis when checking side marker test points.; Your table of minimum candlepower requirements for the Type combination lamp meets J592b and therefore Standard No. 108 providing you define the H-V axis as that of the side marker lamp. The requirements for the Type 1 combination as specified in your table will not meet J592b or Standard No. 108 unless you change H-10, -20, -30, -45, -60, - 80 and -90, both L and R to H-15, -25, -35, -45, -55, -65, -75 and -90, both L and R, and define the H-V axis as a line through the center of the lamp at a 45 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.; Your mounting instructions are considerably more restrictive than thos implied in J592b and Standard No. 108. Actually, no additional mounting instructions are necessary, because any mounting which meets the minimum candlepower requirements of Table I in J592 and your table with the suggested revisions would meet the requirements of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5293OpenMr. Maine E. Peace, Jr. Supervising Revenue Officer State of Washington Department of Revenue P.O. Box 1176 Bellingham, WA 98327; Mr. Maine E. Peace Jr. Supervising Revenue Officer State of Washington Department of Revenue P.O. Box 1176 Bellingham WA 98327; Dear Mr. Peace: This is in response to your FAX of August 3, 1993, t Robert Hellmuth, Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to the disposition of Canadian vehicles seized in the State of Washington for violations of Washington law regarding the possession and transportation of illegal cigarettes. I apologize for the delay in our response. You have requested that we 'provide authority for the Department of Revenue to sell the vehicles locally even tho (sic) they were manufactured in Canada, providing of course the vehicles meet most if not all the standards regulated by your agency regarding vehicle safety.' Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides, among other things, that no person shall import into the United States any motor vehicle that does not comply with U.S. safety standards. When a vehicle that doesn't meet the U.S. safety standards crosses the border from Canada into the United States, its driver is regarded as the importer, and, unless the driver or circumstances indicate otherwise, we view the importation as a temporary one by a non- resident for his or her personal use, and hence, permissible. However, if the State of Washington were to seize the vehicle and sell it locally, the action of the State would have the effect of converting the temporary importation of a non-conforming vehicle into a permanent one. We believe that such action would be inconsistent with the Safety Act's requirement that no person import into the United States any motor vehicle that doesn't meet U.S. safety standards. Non-conforming Canadian vehicles are admitted into the United States on the condition that they will be exported back to Canada within one year. We believe that the most appropriate way for the State of Washington to dispose of the vehicles would be to export them back to Canada. If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2556OpenHonorable Frank Horton, Chairman, Commission on Federal Paperwork, 1111 Twentieth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20582; Honorable Frank Horton Chairman Commission on Federal Paperwork 1111 Twentieth Street N.W. Washington DC 20582; Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your March 9, 1977, letter requesting a copy of th report prepared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in response to the Senate Commerce Committee's inquiries concerning the recordkeeping requirements of the tire registration program. I too am interested in reducing the burden upon the public occasioned by unnecessary paperwork. In accordance with your request, I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA report.; Regarding your comments concerning the viability of a voluntary tir registration technique to replace the present registration program, you should note that the NHTSA has considered the possibility of a voluntary registration procedure similar to the warranty card procedure utilized by appliance manufacturers. Through informal inquiries of appliance manufacturers, the agency discovered that return of warranty cards averages about 50 percent in the case of expensive appliances and falls as low as 10 percent in the case of 10- to 35-dollar items. An entirely separate problem arises with voluntary registration of tires in that the purchaser cannot be expected to distinguish the serial number from other numbers that appear on each tire. More important, the identification number is placed on the side opposite the whitewall on many tires, and it is probable that the purchaser would fail to locate the correct number in the typical situation where the tires are mounted on his vehicle before he sees them.; If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, Brock Adams |
|
ID: aiam0204OpenMr. C. L. Eshelman, President, Eshelman, Inc., 621 N.E. 30th Terrace, Miami, FL 33137; Mr. C. L. Eshelman President Eshelman Inc. 621 N.E. 30th Terrace Miami FL 33137; >>>Re: Consumer Information--Certification-- Distributions<<< Dear Mr. Eshelman: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1969, in which yo responded to our inquiry concerning consumer information on vehicles sold by your company.; You stated that your Golden Eagle cars are 'made from new mode Chevrolets without any mechanical change,' and that the 'consumer information and the warranty book as supplied by General Motors are passed along to the consumer with the vehicle.' You also stated that you place a label next to the GM certification label, quoting language similar to that specified in the Certification Regulations for the distributor who alters a vehicle, 49 CFR S 367.6. We are enclosing a copy of the Certification Regulations: please note that the abovementioned distributor statement, if it is applicable, requires the month and year of alteration to be stated immediately after the name of the distributor.; The question whether the procedure you have outlined in respect t certification is acceptable depends on whether the alterations that you perform on the Chevrolets are sufficiently minor to place you in the category of 'distributor' rather than 'manufacturer'. In order to make this determination, we need and would like to receive more detailed information on the work that you do on the vehicles.; The question whether the practice you describe, of passing on th General Motors consumer information, is acceptable depends on whether the information is actually correct for the vehicles as you alter them. The weight of the final vehicle, for example, is an important factor in the vehicle's performance in all three areas of acceleration, braking, and tire reserve load. We should mention that you are fully responsible, subject to the penalties specified in section 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for ensuring that the correctness of the consumer information that you provide with your vehicles is not adversely affected by the work that you do on them, whether you are ultimately placed in the category of manufacturer or distributor.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam2239OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to several questions raised by Blue Bird Body Compan concerning the applicability of school bus safety standards to certain bus types under the newly-issued redefinition of school bus (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The new definition (effective October 27, 1976) reads:; >>> School bus' means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstat commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.<<<; In your February 24, 1976, letter you ask whether buses utilized t transport athletic teams and school bands to and from athletic events qualify as school buses under the definition that becomes effective October 27, 1976, and, if so, whether they must therefore comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; From your description of the use of an activity bus' to transpor students to and from athletic events related to the students' school, it would be included as a school bus under the new definition if it were sold for this use. It appears clear that the manufacturer and dealer in these cases would both be aware that the purchasing school intended to use the bus to transport students to events related to their school, such as athletic events involving school teams. In close cases, the knowledge of parties to the sales transaction would be determinative of whether the bus was sold...for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events....' Any bus determined to be a school bus under the new definition would be required to meet all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture.; Your December 16, 1975, letter asks whether transit buses that ar based on a basic school bus design must meet the requirements of Standard No. 217, *Emergency Exits*, that apply to buses other than school buses. Since receipt of your letter, the redefinition of school bus has been issued and Standard No. 217 has been amended by the addition of requirements for school buses. In answer to your question, only a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school qualifies as a school bus. A bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation would be required to meet the requirements of Standard 217 for buses other than school buses.; Your separate question regarding the configuration of emergency exit has been answered in an earlier interpretation of the provision you question. A copy of that interpretation is enclosed.; Your March 4, 1976, letter asked whether the new definition of schoo bus includes buses that are sold for transportation of college-age students. You argued that an intent to include buses other than those for the transportation of preprimary-, primary-, and secondary-school students would go beyond the statutory definition added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. S1391(14)), and apply the standards to a broader variety of vehicles than those for which they were developed. The NHTSA finds this argument to have merit. It therefore withdraws its discussion of the breadth of the regulatory definition of school bus that appeared in the December 31, 1975, preamble. The agency will not consider buses sold for the transportation of college-age students to be school buses.; You also asked if any motor vehicle safety standard requires tha school buses be painted yellow. No motor vehicle safety standard requires yellow paint. At this time, however, Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,* requires installation of warning lights, and this would entail the use of yellow paint by the operator under Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17.; In an area unrelated to school bus definition, you asked in a Februar 20, 1976, letter whether the description of vehicle roof appearing in S5.2(b) of Standard No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, applies to determination of roof size under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b). The description is intended to apply to roof measurement under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5006OpenMr. Charles Chun General Manager Kia Motors Corporation Los Angeles Office 1 Technology Drive, Building H Irvine, CA 92718; Mr. Charles Chun General Manager Kia Motors Corporation Los Angeles Office 1 Technology Drive Building H Irvine CA 92718; "Dear Mr. Chun: This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992 requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below. First, you asked about the meaning of 'manufactured date,' in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the 'manufactured date' would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance. For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the 'manufactured date' for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea. Second, you asked whether 'manufactured date,' as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as 'model year.' The answer is no. The term 'model year' is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as 'the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.' As explained above, the concept of 'manufactured date' refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer. Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years. See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars. I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0654OpenMr. Italo De Gregori, Fabbrica Pisana S.p.A., Direzione Commerciale, Servizio Tecnico Commerciale, E Controllo Qualita, Via E. Romagnoli 6, 20146 Milano, Italy; Mr. Italo De Gregori Fabbrica Pisana S.p.A. Direzione Commerciale Servizio Tecnico Commerciale E Controllo Qualita Via E. Romagnoli 6 20146 Milano Italy; Dear Mr. De Gregori: Thank you for your letter of March 10, 1972, concerning marking of you glazing materials intended for the American market.; The marking you propose to use satisfies the requirements of Standar No. 205, *Glazing Materials*.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2669OpenHonorable Jerome A. Ambro, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Jerome A. Ambro House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Ambro: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1977, regarding letter from your constituent, Mr. Larry Gabor, Chairman of the Huntington Consumer Protection Board, concerning the safety of vehicle seats which do not lock in fore-and-aft adjustment position.; As we explained to Mr. Gabor in our letter of August 18, 1977 (cop enclosed), we have a Federal motor vehicle safety standard which is designed to prevent this situation. The standard regulates vehicles at initial sale, but does not cover inadvertent failure or premature wear-out situations. We do have authority to investigate such situations, however, to determine if grounds exist for conduct of a safety related defect 'recall campaign.' We are forwarding a copy of Mr. Gabor's letter to our Office of Defects Investigation to alert them of this situation. Our previous letter urged Mr. Gabor to furnish them the pertinent details on this matter. Only then can they investigate properly.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam1946OpenHonorable Larry Winn, Jr., House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Larry Winn Jr. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Winn: This is in reply to your letters of January 28 and May 14, 1975 inquiring about the effect of Federal motor vehicle safety standards on a constituent's problem in finding a mid-size American car with a sufficiently adjustable seat or a dealer willing to modify such a vehicle to accommodate your constituent's 6-feet 8-inch frame.; The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-492 amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*., to prohibit any 'manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business' from 'knowingly render(ing) inoperative . . . 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 standard . . .' Because seat position is a variable which may affect compliance with several safety standards, dealers are understandably wary about relocating a vehicle's seat.; The obvious solution for this problem is for the manufacturer t determine how far its seats can be moved outside their normal adjustment ranges and still comply with applicable standards, and then to make this information available. I hope that Mr. Morton has found a dealer or manufacturer who is willing to make an effort to do this instead of relying on the excuse that Federal law precludes any solution. Mr. Morton also has two other alternatives: to buy and have installed a custom seat from a company willing to certify the altered vehicle under 49 CFR 567.7, or to move the original seat himself or with the assistance of people who are not in the motor vehicle repair business.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, 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.