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: aiam4752OpenMr. Manuel R. Garcia PSC Box 1865 APO NY 09406; Mr. Manuel R. Garcia PSC Box 1865 APO NY 09406; "Dear Mr. Garcia: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1990, t Ms. DeMeter of this Office, with respect to importation requirements for motor vehicles. You have recently bought a l974 BMW l602 made 'overseas', and would like information on Federal safety (and EPA) requirements the car must conform to before it is shipped, or, alternatively, whether it is permissible to make the necessary repairs after the car arrives in the United States. Changes in the law affecting importation of cars subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which were effective January 31, l990, have made the process of importing nonconforming vehicles much more difficult than before. In brief, your car can be imported only if this agency has made a determination that it is capable of conversion to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an affirmative determination has been made, you may import the vehicle only if you have a contract with an importer who has registered with this agency to undertake to conform the vehicle to meet Federal requirements. If the conversion work has been performed abroad, the registered importer is nevertheless responsible for submitting verification that the work has been done. At this early date in implementing the law, the agency has made no determinations of vehicle eligibility, and has appointed only a handful of registered importers. I believe that the regulations of the EPA are similar, importation is accomplished through an 'independent commercial importer' (ICI). We are forwarding a copy of your letter to that agency for its response. You haven't indicated when you anticipate importing the BMW. I suggest, as the time approaches, you write our Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. He can then provide you with the latest list of registered importers, and vehicles for which affirmative importation determinations have been made. If your car is not among them, you may persuade a registered importer to petition the agency on your behalf. However, there is a fee imposed for consideration of petitions (either $1,560 or $2,150, depending on the car). This is payable in advance, and is non-refundable if a petition is denied. Further, a vehicle owner is not eligible to submit such a petition. You didn't say how 'recently' you bought your car. However, if it was before October 31, l988, and you were stationed outside the U.S. at that time and have never before imported a nonconforming vehicle, the law allows you, until October 31, l992, to import the car personally, without a registered importer and without an importation determination, and to have conversion work done by anyone you choose. You also asked for 'the publication that covers the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register.' I am not sure what you mean, but I am enclosing our new vehicle importation form, Form HS-7, which all importers of motor vehicles must execute upon arrival of their vehicles. It is, in essence, a concise form of the new importation regulation. I am also enclosing copies of that regulation, and the ones on registered importers, vehicle eligibility determinations, and fees. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3097OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your August 30, 1979, letter asking how to comply wit Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. That regulation states, in part, that a manufacturer may choose as the date of manufacture of a vehicle, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of manufacture of the final vehicle, or any date between those two dates. You ask whether this choice is available to manufacturers that manufacture both the incomplete vehicle and the final-stage vehicle. The answer to your question is no.; As you noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration issued an interpretation in 1974 stating that manufacturers of both incomplete and final-stage vehicles could not choose the date of manufacture of their completed vehicles. Those manufacturers must use only the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle.; The 1974 interpretation stated that manufacturers of both incomplet and final-stage vehicles do not need a choice of manufacture dates. That choice is only appropriate when a manufacturer of a completed vehicle does not have control over the manufacture of the incomplete vehicle. In such cases, a final-stage manufacturer might order an incomplete vehicle which would be constructed prior to the effective date of new safety standards but received after the effective date of such standards. If the incomplete vehicle were not in compliance with the new standards, it might be impossible for the final-stage manufacturer to use it in the construction of a completed vehicle. When a manufacturer is in complete control of both units, however, it can ensure that the incomplete vehicle will comply with the appropriate safety standards that will be in effect on the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle.; Our 1974 interpretation stated that the certification requirement would change as a result of the *Rex Chainbelt* decision. As you are aware, the agency significantly modified its regulations in accordance with that decision. However, the sections relating to the date of manufacture of a vehicle were not changed. Accordingly, our 1974 interpretation of those sections limiting the choice of dates of manufacture for a manufacturer that produce (sic) all stages of a vehicle remains in effect.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1550OpenMr. George R. Semark, Safety Engineer-Vehicles, Transportation Equipment Group, Vehicle Development Center, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 2885 St. Johns Avenue, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. George R. Semark Safety Engineer-Vehicles Transportation Equipment Group Vehicle Development Center Sheller-Globe Corporation 2885 St. Johns Avenue Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Semark: This is in response to your letter of May 15, 1974, requesting tha vehicles which seat 10 persons or less, but are of the same base design as buses specifically designed as school buses, be classified as school buses regardless of their intended use.; The vehicles that would be affected by the reclassification you reques are currently categorized as multipurpose passenger vehicles, since they provide seating positions for 10 persons or less. In general, the multipurpose passenger vehicle category is subject to more stringent safety requirements than either the bus or the school bus categories. Further, additional standards are becoming effective for multipurpose passenger vehicles in the near future as part of the NHTSA's overall plan to extend the requirements presently applicable to passenger cars. Thus, multipurpose passenger vehicles can expect increasingly higher safety performance levels, comparable to those of passenger cars.; Vehicles used to transport handicapped children should not b reclassified in such a way as to reduce the number or the stringency of the requirements to which they are subject.; On the basis of the above reasons, the NHTSA has concluded that th vehicles about which you are petitioning should not be reclassified as school buses and your petition is therefore denied.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4302OpenThe Honorable William E. Dannemeyer, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable William E. Dannemeyer House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Mr. Dannemeyer: Thank your(sic) for your letter to Mr. Babbitt, our Director o Congressional Affairs, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Ed Money. Mr. Money recently imported a shipment of 'spinner hubcaps' from Taiwan. These hubcaps were seized by the U.S. Customs Service for failing to conform with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hubcaps* (49 CFR S571.211). You stated that it was your understanding that Standard No. 211 applies only to vehicle manufacturers and not to aftermarket parts dealers, and that the Customs Service had erroneously applied Standard No. 211 to the products you(sic) constitutent(sic) intended to import. Accordingly, you asked that we review the requirements of Standard No. 211 and state whether those requirements apply to 'anyone other than a manufacturer of automobiles'.; After carefully reviewing the language of Standard No. 211 and ever prior interpretation of the standard, we have concluded that the Customs Service correctly applied Standard No. 211 to Mr. Money's hubcaps. Section S2 of Standard No. 211 specifies that, 'This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, *and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment*.' (Emphasis added) This language means that the standard applies to all wheel nuts, wheel discs and hubcaps for use on passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether the part is to be used as original equipment or as a replacement part. This meaning has long been affirmed in this agency's letters of interpretation. We explained the application of Standard No. 211 in letter of May 8, 1967, to Mr. Earl Kinter, and May 10, 1967, to Mr. Harold Halfpenny. I have enclosed copies of both these previous interpretations for your information. These letter are still accurate expressions of the agency's opinion on this question.; Standard No. 211, which was one of the original Federal motor vehicl safety standards, became effective on January 1, 1968. As of that date, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) made it illegal to 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or *import into the Untied States'* any 'spinner hubcaps' (Emphasis added). Therefore, we believe the U.S. Customs Service was enforcing the law properly when it seized the hubcaps Mr. Money sought to import.; You enclosed with your letter advertisements from several othe aftermarket parts suppliers offering spinner hubcaps for sale. Our enforcement personnel will investigate each of those suppliers and take appropriate actions if their hubcaps violate Standard No. 211; I hope this information clarifies the law on this subject. If you hav any further questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1100OpenMr. Vic Horne, Plant & Equipment Manager, Habco, Inc. 2251 Armour Road, North Kansas City, MO 64116; Mr. Vic Horne Plant & Equipment Manager Habco Inc. 2251 Armour Road North Kansas City MO 64116; Dear Mr. Horne: This is in reply to your letters of January 29 and March 20, 1973 concerning the application of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to trucks to which you add railroad wheels, enabling the trucks to be driven on railroad tracks. In response to our letter to you of February 26, 1973, you enclosed in your letter of March 20 a picture representative of these vehicles, and provided us with certain information. Among other things you state that the vehicles are used on public highways approximately 50 per cent of the time, and that they are licensed under State laws.; Based on our examination of this picture, and the information provide with it, we are of the opinion that these vehicles are motor vehicles, specifically trucks, and are required to conform to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to trucks. This is true if the vehicles are new vehicles when you modify them, regardless of whether they are your own trucks or whether they are modified for customers.; The Certification requirement which you refer to is based on sectio 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403), and regulations issued by NHTSA (49 CFR Parts 567, 568, copy enclosed). Essentially, the regulations specify a means for manufacturers to certify their vehicles as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your responsibilities for Certification will depend upon whether you are an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, as these terms are defined in the regulations. While it is your responsibility to determine which category applies to you, it appears to us that you are most likely an intermediate manufacturer. We base this opinion on the fact that the truck pictured lacks a body, even though the railroad wheels have been added. It appears that some form of body will be added, as you state in your March 20 letter that the vehicles are intended to be 'spray trucks'. If this is correct, your responsibilities for Certification are found at Part 568, 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages'. Briefly, intermediate manufacturers are required to forward to the final- stage manufacturer the document the intermediate manufacturer received with the incomplete vehicle. If the intermediate manufacturer alters the vehicle so as to affect the validity of statements in the document, he is required to provide an addendum to the document indicating the changes he made.; If the vehicle is a completed vehicle before the rail wheels are added your responsibilities are contingent upon the extent of the modification you perform. Because these modifications are significant the respect to the vehicle's intended use, we would consider section 567.4, 'Requirements for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles,' the appropriate requirements for you to meet. The NHTSA has proposed requirements for vehicle alterers, which might apply to you in this case, but these requirements have not been issued in final form.; You may obtain copies of NHTSA requirements as specified on th enclosed form, 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2686OpenMr. B. E. Clapson, Technical Director, Avon Tyres Limited, Bath Road, Melksham, Wiltshire SN12 8AA, England; Mr. B. E. Clapson Technical Director Avon Tyres Limited Bath Road Melksham Wiltshire SN12 8AA England; Dear Mr. Clapson: Your petition of September 28, 1977, for an inconsequentialit determination has been forwarded to this office for reply.; The 'noncompliance' in question is the failure of Avon Tyres to provid correct spacing between the symbol DOT and the alphanumeric code on certain tires. This requirement is imposed by 49 CFR 574.5. In addition S4.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 requires that each tire 'shall be labelled with the ... brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer in the manner specified in Part 574'. The requirement in question is primarily one of information rather than one of safety performance, and we therefore choose to regard the incorrect spacing as a noncompliance with Part 574.; A manufacturer's obligation to notify and remedy arises only upon th discovery of a safety-related defect, or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore Avon's failure to correctly space the information required by Part 574 is neither a safety-related defect nor a noncompliance with a safety standard, and it has no obligation to notify and remedy. Since Avon's petition is moot, it will not be considered.; No corrective action is required for the tires in question. We not Avon's assurances of future conformance and we will close our files without imposing a civil penalty for the company's technical violation of Part 574.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Deputy Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5143OpenMr. Dale E. Dawkins Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs Chrysler Corporation CIMS 429-10-02 Featherstone Road Center 2301 Featherstone Road Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2808; Mr. Dale E. Dawkins Director Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs Chrysler Corporation CIMS 429-10-02 Featherstone Road Center 2301 Featherstone Road Auburn Hills MI 48326-2808; "Dear Mr. Dawkins: This responds to your letter of January 7, 1994 requesting confirmation that Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 'would permit the sun visor air bag caution label required in S4.5.1(b) to be combined with the utility vehicle information sticker required by 49 CFR Part 575.105.' Your letter notes that you are aware that both General Motors and Ford petitioned the agency to amend S4.5.1(b)(2) of Standard No. 208, as amended by a September 2, 1993 final rule, to permit the utility vehicle label on the sun visor. A March 10, 1994, final rule responding to the petitions for reconsideration amended S4.5.1(b)(2) to allow the installation of a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR Part 575.105(c)(1). While the utility vehicle label will continue to be allowed on the sun visor, the language of the final rule does not allow the combination of the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label. The September 2 and March 10 final rules specify (1) that no information other than that in the air bag maintenance label is allowed on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that other than the air bag alert label or a utility vehicle label, no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Thus, the clear language of the final rules do not permit the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label to be on the same side of the sun visor. Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if the language of the final rules do not allow combination of the labels. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3994OpenMr. Douglas I. Greenhaus, Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs, National Automobile Dealers Association, 8400 Westpark Drive, McLean, VA 22102; Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean VA 22102; Dear Mr. Greenhaus: Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1985, to Stephan Oesch of m staff. You asked us to confirm your understanding of how our regulations would affect the alteration of a new vehicle prior to its sale.; Your question specifically relates to a situation in which a deale wants to switch, prior to sale of the vehicle, the bucket seats from one new motor vehicle to another new vehicle of the same model. You explained in a phone conversation with Mr. Oesch that changing the seats might involve some cutting and welding of the seats or their tracks. Under Part 567.7 (49 CFR Part 567.7) of our regulations, we would consider the dealer to be an 'alterer'. After completing the alteration, the dealer would be required by Part 567.7 to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Depending on the specific design of the vehicle seat and the actual alterations performed, the replacement of a seat would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, and could be affected by Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*.; Thank you for providing us with the information on glass tinting. hope this information on vehicle alteration is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0341OpenMrs. Barbara G. Rothschild, 2134 Springdale Drive, Columbus, GA 31906; Mrs. Barbara G. Rothschild 2134 Springdale Drive Columbus GA 31906; Dear Mrs. Rothschild: This is in reply to your letter of April 28, 1971, in which you aske whether modifications to a 'forced-action' belt could make it into a system that would satisfy the passive restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Although we cannot at this time comment on the changes to which you refer, a passive belt system can be used to satisfy the requirement that protection be provided by means that require no action by vehicle occupants.; As you requested, we have enclosed copies of the Standard as publishe March 10, 1971.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Acting Administrator |
|
ID: aiam5513OpenThe Honorable Tillie K. Fowler Member, U.S. House of Representatives 4452 Hendricks Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32207; The Honorable Tillie K. Fowler Member U.S. House of Representatives 4452 Hendricks Avenue Jacksonville FL 32207; "Your Reference: 95-0167-J Dear Congresswoman Fowler: Thank you fo your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dail Taylor of St. Augustine, Florida. Mr. Taylor requested assistance, stating that his company would have to stop manufacturing passenger motor vehicles if the vehicles must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). I appreciate the concerns of Mr. Taylor as a small businessman and offer the following information. In order to protect motorists and their passengers, a Federal statute requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs regulating motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Mr. Taylor's company, Goodlife Motor Company, wrote to NHTSA asking whether their 'super golf cars' were motor vehicles and therefore subject to the FMVSSs. NHTSA's Chief Counsel responded by letter that the answer was 'yes'. We were informed that the 'super golf cars' are intended for use on public roads. NHTSA has two criteria for determining whether a vehicle that regularly uses the public roads is considered to be a 'motor vehicle.' A vehicle is not a motor vehicle if it meets both of the following criteria: the vehicle has an abnormal configuration distinguishing it from other vehicles, and the vehicle cannot attain speeds over 20 miles per hour (mph). The 'super golf cars' do not meet either criterion. We have determined that because the vehicles resemble passenger cars, they do not have an abnormal configuration. As to speed, we note that the top speed of the vehicles, 29 mph, is approximately the speed at which NHTSA conducts crash tests to see whether vehicles meet certain safety standards. It is also a speed at which vehicle occupants can readily suffer serious or even fatal injuries in a crash. We note further that older adults are more susceptible than younger adults to injury in motor vehicle crashes. This is particularly important since we understand that one of the primary expected uses of the 'super golf car' is in retirement communities. As motor vehicles, the 'super golf cars' must meet the FMVSS. As the president of a small business, Mr. Taylor has a number of compliance options. First, he can comply with the current safety standards. I appreciate that the costs of compliance would be significant. Second, Mr. Taylor may petition NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to amend the current safety standards to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. NHTSA has authority to establish different levels of requirements for vehicles of different sizes. However, it lacks the authority to vary the stringency of requirements based on the size of a vehicle manufacturer. Third, NHTSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to small manufacturers. Mr. Taylor may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more of the safety standards. However, as we explained to Mr. Taylor, temporary exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. Further, the exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted. Mr. Taylor may himself prepare and submit any petition. We have enclosed copies of our regulations regarding petitions for rulemaking and petitions for exemption. If Mr. Taylor has any questions or needs further information on how to proceed under any of the three options discussed above, we will gladly provide assistance. Please ask him to contact Taylor Vinson at (202)366-2992. Sincerely, Carol Stroebel, Director Intergovernmental Affairs Enclosures"; |
|
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.