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: aiam4744OpenMr. Karl-Heinz Faber Senior Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645-0350; Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Senior Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive P.O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645-0350; "Dear Mr. Faber: This is in response to your letter of April 19, 199 to Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201). More specifically, you stated in your letter that future Mercedes-Benz vehicles will come equipped with new armrests between the two front and, where applicable, two rear seating position. The new design will have a built-in compartment that can accommodate car phone storage. It will be covered by a lift-up lid that will afford easy access to the phone. Your letter indicated that your company believes the lift-up lid on this armrest would not be subject to the provisions of S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 for 'interior compartment doors,' since those provisions do not apply to doors incorporated in center armrests. However, your letter indicated your company's belief that the new armrests would be subject to the requirements of S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, which applies to folding armrests. As explained more fully below, these beliefs appear to be correct applications of the standard. At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards would apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information. With those caveats, I agree with you that sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 do not appear to apply to the lift-up lid on your armrest design. Section S3.3 of Standard No. 201 requires that interior compartment doors 'located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position' remain closed when tested in accordance with the demonstration procedures in section S3.3.1 of the Standard. It is not clear if the lift-up lid on your armrest design would qualify as an 'interior compartment door' within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR 571.3 ('any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects'). If the armrest is designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid on the armrest would be considered an 'interior compartment door.' If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid would not be an 'interior compartment door' and S3.3 and S3.3.1 would not apply to it. Even if the lift-up lid were considered an interior compartment door, it would not appear to be subject to sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of the Standard. This is because those sections apply only to interior compartment doors 'located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position . . . .' Only interior compartment doors located in the listed components must comply with S3.3 and S3.3.1. Since an armrest is not among the listed components, interior compartment doors located in an armrest are not subject to S3.3 and S3.3.1. You also discussed the applicability of section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201 to your armrest design. Section S3.5.2 applies to armrests that folds into the seat back or between two seat backs. Based on the information supplied in your letter, we agree that your armrest design would be subject to section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, because it is a folding armrest between two seat backs. We also agree with your suggestion that Mercedes-Benz may comply with section S3.5.2 by ensuring that this armrest design is 'constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material.' I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or need some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3081OpenHonorable David Boren, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Boren: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Weaver, regarding problems he is having with the automatic belt system on his Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, the belt system does not properly fit Mr. Weaver, and Volkswagen has stated it cannot lower the driver's seat to correct the problem because of Federal regulations.; Before getting into the details of this matter, I want to express m admiration for Mr. Weaver in his efforts to obtain the benefits of his safety belts. It is discouraging to hear that a person wishing to use his belts is unable to do so. However, I must stress that we have no authority to compel a manufacturer to alter a vehicle in a situation like this. The most we can do is attempt to clarify whether it is federal law or other factors that led to Volkswagen's reluctance to make the alterations desired by Mr. Weaver.; The discussion in the letter you received from Mr. Kenneth Adams Volkswagen's Washington representative, needs some clarification. Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger cars to be equipped with safety belts that adjust to fit drivers ranging in size from the 5th-percentile adult female (weighing about 102 pounds) to a 95th-percentile adult male (weighing about 215 pounds). Therefore, the regulation requires safety belts to fit *at least* 90 percent of the driving population. Of course, nothing prohibits manufacturers from designing their belts to fit 100 percent of the population, and the agency encourages manufacturers to do so. The standard is only a minimum requirement, allowing manufacturers some leeway because of unusual body sizes at either end of the spectrum.; Mr. Adams also stated in his letter to you that lowering the seat woul change the performance characteristics of Volkswagen's belt system and would make it necessary 'to begin the entire testing process for certification again.' This statement too requires clarification. At the present time, Safety Standard No. 208 does not require safety belts as installed in motor vehicles to meet dynamic performance requirements. Dynamically testing safety belts would entail restraining a test dummy with a vehicle's safety belts and testing their performance by crashing the vehicle into a test barrier. In such testing, the position of the seat in relation to the belts would be important. However, the current requirements do not involve testing safety belts inside the vehicle. They require that the belts meet certain laboratory tests and that belts capable to (sic) passing those tests be installed in new vehicles.; Further, regardless of the type of performance standards involved lowering the seat of a used vehicle could not raise any question about recertification. Certification relates to new vehicles exclusively. The only question which lowering the seat would pose under our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, would be whether lowering the seat would cause equipment installed pursuant to Federal safety standards to no longer be in compliance. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative safety equipment. If this prohibition is the concern of Mr. Adams of Volkswagen, perhaps he can clarify for you constituent how Volkswagen believes lowering the seat would violate that prohibition. Mr. Adams does not state that lowering the seat would preclude the belt system from adjusting to fit the range of people specified in the standard.; It may be that Volkswagen's reluctance to lower the seat stems from concern about products liability. Lowering the seat could very well alter the performance of the Volkswagen automatic belt system.; In an effort to promote further clarification of Volkswagen's position I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Adams. The only further thing I can do is suggest that Mr. Weaver contact Mr. Adams again and obtain his reaction to my letter. Perhaps we can then see what other alterations are available. I hope some adjustment can be made to accommodate Mr. Weaver.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam2043OpenMr. James H. Whitaker, Associate Professor, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268; Mr. James H. Whitaker Associate Professor The University of Connecticut Storrs CT 06268; Dear Mr. Whitaker: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 22, 1975 which inquired about the status of tire grading standards.; On May 20, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio issued the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards with a series of effective dates beginning January 1, 1976 (40 FR 23073, May 28, 1975). On July 3, 1975, the regulation was republished with minor changes (40 FR 28071). On August 14, 1975, a stay of the effective dates was granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, pending review of the validity of the regulation in a suit brought by eight tire manufacturers.; For your convenience, I have enclosed copies of the Federal Registe notices referred to above.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4894OpenMr. Ivan Lee Deputy General Manager Regulation Affairs Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108; Mr. Ivan Lee Deputy General Manager Regulation Affairs Hyundai America Technical Center Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor Michigan 48108; "Dear Mr. Lee: This responds to your letter of June 17, 1991 concernin an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that Hyundai would like to have the following percentage of its passenger cars meet the dynamic performance requirements of the standard in each applicable year: 1994 model year -- 20 percent 1995 model year -- 20 percent 1996 model year -- 50 percent 1997 model year -- 100 percent You ask whether this compliance schedule is acceptable. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the requirements of Standard No. 214. The new dynamic test requirements of Standard No. 214 are phased in over a three-year period, beginning on September 1, 1993. The October 30, 1990 final rule established two alternative compliance schedules. Each manufacturer must comply with either alternative, at its discretion. Under the first schedule, each manufacturer will have to meet the new side impact performance requirements based on the following phase-in schedule: 10 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l993, 25 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l994, 40 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l995, and All automobiles it manufactures on or after September l, l996. To accommodate variation in the numbers of vehicles manufactured each year, the standard also permits these percentages to be applied to a three-year average annual production rather than to a single year's production. See section S8 of Standard No. 214. Under the second schedule, no compliance will be required during the production year beginning September 1, l993, but full implementation will be required effective September 1, l994. The compliance schedule you suggest would not appear to comply with either alternative. Since your suggested schedule does not achieve full implementation until the 1997 model year, it clearly does not comply with the second schedule. Under the first schedule, for passenger cars manufactured between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995, the number of passenger cars complying with the dynamic performance requirements must not be less than 25 percent of (a) the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September l, l99l, and before September l, l994, by each manufacturer, or (b) the manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995. See sections S3(c) and S8.2 of Standard No. 214. However, under the compliance schedule you suggest, only 20 percent of Hyundai's vehicles would meet the requirements during the 1995 model year. (I assume that, by 1995 model year, you mean the period from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995. The rule refers to time periods, rather than to model years.) The agency has received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule requesting that the agency allow use of 'carry-forward credits' during the phase-in of the dynamic test requirements. Such an approach could allow a compliance schedule like the one you suggested. The agency response to the petition will address the issue raised in your letter. The agency response is expected to be published in the Federal Register later this summer. Please review the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration when it is published. If you believe that you need further clarification, please contact us again. I hope that this information has been useful. If there are any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0584OpenMr. John F. Waldherr, Director of Engineering, Wells Manufacturing Corp., Fond Du Lac, WI 54935; Mr. John F. Waldherr Director of Engineering Wells Manufacturing Corp. Fond Du Lac WI 54935; Dear Mr. Waldherr: In your letter of February 2 you refer to paragraph S4.5.1 of Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and its reference to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, *Headlamp Beam Switching*, April 1964. You ask 'whether there is anything in your Docket related to Rule No. 108 to bring it up to either J564b or J564c.'; Perhaps you misread S4.5.1, but it does allow conformance with J564b a an alternative to J564a. No proposal has been issued requiring or allowing conformance with J564c.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2413OpenMr. Jim S. Green, Hux and Green, 204 W. North Street, Sikeston, MO 63801; Mr. Jim S. Green Hux and Green 204 W. North Street Sikeston MO 63801; Dear Mr. Green: This responds to your August 18, 1976, request to know th responsibilities of a manufacture of motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1381, *et seq*.). The information you request appears in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and I enclose an information sheet which explains how this material may be obtained. I have also enclosed copies of several of the pertinent regulations.; Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR Part 566), specifie identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment regulated by our standards.; Part 567, *Certification* (49 CFR Part 567), specifies the content an location of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards. After a manufacturer has certified a motor vehicle, persons who alter it, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies (or minor finishing operations such as painting), and persons who change the vehicle's weight ratings, must be able to state that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply. The requirements for such alterers appear at S 567.7 and S 568.8 of NHTSA regulations. An example of a significant alteration is mounting of a snowplow to a certified vehicle.; It is common practice in the truck industry to manufacture vehicles i two or more stages, often by the manufacture of a cab-chassis by a large volume manufacturer, followed by the installation of a body or piece of work-performing equipment by a smaller manufacturer in the locality where the truck is being purchased. To assign responsibilities for the certification of such 'multi-stage' vehicles, the NHTSA has issued Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages* (49 CFR Part 568). The manufacturer of an 'incomplete vehicle' (such as a cab-chassis) must provide documentation to the intermediate and final-stage manufacturer of the vehicle on how to complete it so that it complies with all applicable standards. It is the responsibility of the final- stage manufacturer to affix the certification label discussed earlier, unless the incomplete- or intermediate-stage manufacturer assumes this responsibility.; In some cases, the two- stage process involves mounting a used body o a new chassis or mounting a new body on an old chassis. It is only when a new chassis is involved that the NHTSA considers the operation to be the manufacture of a new vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4197OpenMr. Davis Thekkanath, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, 2307 Oregon St., Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements* requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, *Certification*, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3652OpenMr. Kosti Shirvanian, President and Chairman of the Board, Western Waste Industries, P. O. Box 214, Gardena, CA 90247; Mr. Kosti Shirvanian President and Chairman of the Board Western Waste Industries P. O. Box 214 Gardena CA 90247; Dear Mr. Shirvanian: This is in reply to your letter of December 22, 1982, informing us tha the California Highway Patrol has advised one of your divisions to remove certain tires from service for failure to 'display the Department of Transportation's symbol on both sidewalls in violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 effective March 1, 1975.' You have also stated that the tires are acceptable in all other respects.; Paragraph S6.5(a), requiring use of the DOT symbol on tires covered b the standard specifically states, 'This symbol may be used on only one sidewall.' Therefore, the tires in question would not fail to comply with Standard No. 119 by having the DOT symbol on only one of the two sidewalls.; If there should, in fact, be other items of information missing fro the tires which render them technically noncompliant with the standard, we would be pleased to advise you further.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2940OpenMr. Stephen E. Hall, President, Esley Development Corporation, 6415 S.W. Canyon Ct., Suite 40, Portland, OR 97221; Mr. Stephen E. Hall President Esley Development Corporation 6415 S.W. Canyon Ct. Suite 40 Portland OR 97221; Dear Mr. Hall:This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1978 asking about your responsibilities, as the manufacturer of a snow plow headlamp holder, under the National traffic and motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Under the Act a truck, with or without snow plow attachment, is 'motor vehicle' and the plow itself and any associated equipment is considered 'motor vehicle equipment' since it is an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. But Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*, contains no requirements either for snow plow or accessory lighting, and your sealbeam holder therefore is not subject to regulation under the standard. However, as a manufacturer of 'motor vehicle equipment,' you are responsible for notification of purchasers and dealers, and remedy of any safety-related defects that may occur in your product. (Sec. 151 *et seq.* of the Act); As to 'what legal burden rests' with you as a 'manufacturer of th sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse' of your units once they leave your plant, we are uncertain what you mean by 'misuse.' If you mean that the holder is used in a way that you did not intend, then the question would appear to be one not answerable under Federal law. If the 'misuse' is attributable to a defect in the sealbeam holder, then the question would arise whether the defect is safety-related. If the answer is affirmative, then you would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act mentioned in the preceding paragraph.; We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Federal Highwa Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, for a reply to your question as to what Federal requirements must be met for use of your units 'on inter and intra state highways.'; Enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested, as well as copy of the Act.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1395OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA, 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1974, asking whether school bus rear lighting system is permissible that activates the back-up lamps and flashes four red stop lamps when the gearshift is in reverse.; The system of supplemental school bus warning lamps you describe is on that is not specified by Standard No. 108. Although S4.6(b) states that 'All . . . lamps [other than those specified in S4.6(a)] shall be steady burning. . . ,' we interpret this requirement as covering only the systems specified by the standard. Therefore there is no Federal prohibition against your installation of such a system. However, the system would be subject to regulation by the individual States, some of which may have restrictions on the use of flashing lights.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.