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: aiam2644OpenMr. Phillip A. O'Reilly, Houdaille Industries, Inc., One M & T Plaza, Buffalo, NY 14203; Mr. Phillip A. O'Reilly Houdaille Industries Inc. One M & T Plaza Buffalo NY 14203; Dear Mr. O'Reilly: This is in response to your letter of June 14, 1977, commenting o certain statements made in the May 12, 1977, Federal Register notice (42 FR 24056) responding to petitions for reconsideration of Part 581, *Bumper Standard*. Specifically, you object to the reference in the notice to the Houdaille cost-benefit study and to the statement that the Harris poll indicated that a 'significant' number of people consider 1/2 inch dents to be damage they would repair.; The notice referred to the Houdaille study as one which indicated tha the damage criteria contained in Part 581 could be met in a cost-beneficial manner. The agency did not represent that the Houdaille study demonstrated that Part 581 standard was the most cost-effective standard that could be promulgated.; With regard to your objection to our characterization of the number o people who would repair a 1/2 inch dent as 'significant,' you should note that it is the conclusion of the agency that the percentage of those people polled (25 percent) who expressed concern over a 1/2 inch dent is *significant*.; Regarding your suggestion that a 2 1/2 mph impact test be adopted, th agency proposed such a change in Part 581 on January 2, 1975 (40 FR 10) and determined after a period for submission of comments and a 2-day public hearing that such a reduction should not be adopted (40 FR 11598, March 12, 1975). The agency's position on that matter has not changed.; We appreciate your comments and have placed your letter in the publi docket.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam0679OpenMr. C. W. Rose, Chairman of the Board, Rose Manufacturing Co., 2700 West Barberry Place, Denver, CO 80204; Mr. C. W. Rose Chairman of the Board Rose Manufacturing Co. 2700 West Barberry Place Denver CO 80204; Dear Mr. Rose: This is in reply to your letters of March 23, 1972, and March 27, 1972 concerning our previous letter to you dated March 10, 1972.; We recognize your contribution to safety and your deep persona involvement in child harnesses. Harnesses, such as yours, offer many desirable features. The child is free to move about, and he is adequately restrained if the harness system is properly adjusted and anchored. Effective harness systems can probably be produced at modest cost.; There certainly can be no objection to the upper torso restrain provided by a good harness system. Indeed, this is a very important feature which is required because of the child's special skeletal structure.; On the other hand, restraints which are anchored to inadequat structures or which allow excessive motion of the child in a crash cannot be condoned. Actual thirty mile-per-hour, sixteen g dynamic sled tests of child harnesses anchored as you recommend have shown that a severe problem exists with the anchorage system. Quoting the University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute Report, *Child Seat and Restraint Systems Test Program*, DOT/HS-800-376, in the test at 30 mph the adult seat back broke away due to the load imposed by the restraint system tether. This allowed the dummy to move forward far enough to cause potential contact with the vehicle interior.' This test was conducted using a heavy duty Bostrom truck bucket seat and utilized only the thirty-pound, three-year-old child dummy, restrained by a Sears small harness. The present typical seat back strengths are, thus, inadequate to support a harness system which depends upon the seat back. It is our intention to encourage improvements in seat back strength for automobile production by future rule making action.; Since your harness is recommended for children up to fifty pounds an since most passenger car seats are not as strong as the test seat, we expect the situation to be even more serious in realistic usage conditions which also normally encounter appreciably higher load levels in thirty mile-per-hour crashes. This is why we object to your system of anchorage. Thus, our position is as stated in our previous letter to you.; We hope that you will consider other methods of anchoring your chil harness which will prevent seat back failure and resulting excessive occupant excursions.; We appreciate your sincere interest and concern in this matter. W emphatically do believe that child harnesses play a vital role in child restraints.; Sincerely, Charles H. Hartman, Deputy Administrator |
|
ID: aiam5181OpenMr. Steve Flint Century Products Co. 9600 Valley View Road Macedonia, OH 44056-2096; Mr. Steve Flint Century Products Co. 9600 Valley View Road Macedonia OH 44056-2096; "Dear Mr. Flint: This responds to your question about the registratio form required by S5.8 of Standard 213, 'Child Restraint Systems.' In telephone conversations with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you indicated that your registration form would have certain characteristics. The form would be identical to the ones shown in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213 and required by S5.8 of the standard, except that cards bearing additional information would be attached to it. The additional information consists of French and Spanish translations of the instructions shown in Figure 9a for filling out the registration form, and a French version of the registration form shown in Figure 9b. You stated that the Spanish instructions are for the Spanish speaking population in the U.S. You also said that the French form is required by Canada for restraints sold there, and that attaching it to the U.S. (English) form facilitates your compliance with both U.S. and Canadian standards. We conclude that as long as the English form complies with S5.8 and does not bear any information or writing beyond that required to be on the form, cards bearing the French and Spanish information may be attached to the English form if the information on those cards is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse consumers in this country about the meaning of the English form or the importance of owner registration. As to whether the additional information is likely to cause confusion, we note the additional information consists solely of French and Spanish translations of the information on the English form. We note further that you indicated to Ms. Fujita that significant numbers of your consumers have been filling in and mailing the tri-lingual registration cards. This return rate indicates that the additional information has not confused the consumers. We appreciate your recognition of the differing language needs of your customers. NHTSA has suggested to manufacturers that they should consider providing consumer instructions on the use of child restraints not only in English, but also in other languages, to address a possible need for such information. (See, denial of petition for rulemaking from Mr. Mattox, 55 FR 48262, November 20, 1990.) Please note, however, that NHTSA wishes to maximize the return rates for the registration forms. If information arises that indicates the French and Spanish information is confusing consumers or otherwise negatively affecting return rates, the agency will reconsider whether such information should be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3956OpenMr. Pat Reese, Mannesmann Pipe & Steel Corp., 1900 Post Oak Blvd., 18th Floor, Houston, TX 77056; Mr. Pat Reese Mannesmann Pipe & Steel Corp. 1900 Post Oak Blvd. 18th Floor Houston TX 77056; Dear Mr. Reese: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking fo an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.120). Specifically, you indicated you were writing on behalf of Mannesmann Kronprinz, a German branch of your company which manufactures wheels. You noted that section S5.2(d) of Standard No. 120 requires rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars to be marked with the name, trademark or symbol identifying the rim manufacturer, and asked if this requirement meant that the German branch of your company had to register its logo or trademark with this agency. Standard No. 120 does not require manufacturers to register trademarks or symbols with the agency. However, 49 CFR S551.45 requires *all* manufacturers whose vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are imported into the United States to file a designation of agent with NHTSA, and this designation must include a listing of the marks, trade names or other designations of origin used by the manufacturer on its products. A check of our files shows that no such designation has ever been filed by Mannesmann Kronprinz.; Section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 sets forth rim marking requirement applicable to all rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. One of the items of information required to be marked on such rims is 'a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol', S5.2(d). This information allows the agency and the public to identify the manufacturer of the rim if there is some problem with it.; The use of a trademark or symbol is allowed, instead of th manufacturer's name, because the agency can easily determine the identify of the manufacturer from the trademark or symbol. In the case of domestic manufacturers, their trademarks or symbols would be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In the case of foreign manufacturers, 49 CFR S551.45 requires them to file a designation of agent with this agency. One of the items of information required to be included in the designation of agent is a listing of 'the marks, trade names, or other designations of origin' which appear on any of the manufacturer's products in lieu of its legal name.; Both 49 CFR S551.45 and 15 U.S.C. 1399(e) require all foreig manufacturers to file a designation of agent with NHTSA *before* importing motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, including wheels into the United States. I have enclosed copies of the regulation and the statute for your reference. As you will see, Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:; >>>1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and bindin on Mannesmann Kronprinz under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address for Mannesmann Kronprinz,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin for any o Mannesmann Kronprinz's products which do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by Mannesmann Kronprinz,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the Mannesmann Kronprinz, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<< Further, 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment covered by our standards to provide certain information to NHTSA. The required information is simply the manufacturer's full name, address, and a brief description of the motor vehicle equipment it manufactures.; Should you have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2214OpenMr. Joseph S. Russo, 693 Central Avenue, Jefferson Parish, Jefferson, LA 70121; Mr. Joseph S. Russo 693 Central Avenue Jefferson Parish Jefferson LA 70121; Dear Mr. Russo: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1976, requesting a opinion as to whether documents enclosed with your correspondence would satisfy the requirements of the disclosure provisions contained in Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) and 49 CFR Part 580.; It appears that both documents contain all of the information necessar to comply with the odometer disclosure requirements.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0229OpenMr. David Hemenway, 49 Roseland Street No. 3, Cambridge, Ma. 02140; Mr. David Hemenway 49 Roseland Street No. 3 Cambridge Ma. 02140; Dear Mr. Hemenway: Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1970, addressed to the Nationa Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the data provided pursuant to the Consumer Information regulations, 49 CFR S 575.101, Vehicle Stopping Distance. A copy of the consumer information data for 1970 vehicles is enclosed.; You asked whether stopping distances greater than 194 feet for vehicle traveling 60 mph indicate the likelihood that such vehicles are failing to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105. As you have noted, the stopping distance for a constant 20 fpsps deceleration from 60 mps would be 194 feet. However, Standard No. 105 does not require an *average* deceleration rate (including 'lag' or 'build up' time) of 20 fpsps during the entire period of deceleration. The Standard requires only that a vehicle *attain* a deceleration rate of 20 fpsps, with a pedal force of between 15 and 120 lbs., in a stop from 60 mps. Consequently, the Standard does not require that the stopping distance not exceed 194 feet, and consumer information data showing a stopping distance is excess of 194 feet for the 60 mph test does not indicate non-compliance with Standard No. 105.; The attached Discussion Paper indicates some of the revisions i Standard No. 105 that are under consideration. Should amendments be found desirable, a notice of proposed rule making containing then proposed revisions will be issued.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2700OpenMr. David R. Sapp, Assistant General Counsel, Texas Automobile Dealers Association, 1108 Lavaca, P.O. Box 1028, Austin, TX 78767; Mr. David R. Sapp Assistant General Counsel Texas Automobile Dealers Association 1108 Lavaca P.O. Box 1028 Austin TX 78767; Dear Mr. Sapp: This responds to your October 5, 1977, letter requesting a furthe clarification of our interpretation given to you on September 1, 1977, concerning 'kit cars.'; You ask whether there is a requirement to certify the vehicle if it i manufactured using an old chassis. As we stated to you in our first letter, the assembly of such a vehicle is not the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The certification requirements of Part 567 of our regulations apply only to new motor vehicles or the alteration of previously certified vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale. Since your remanufacturing operation constitutes neither the manufacture of a new motor vehicle nor the alteration of a previously certified vehicle, your vehicle would not be required to be certified.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3812OpenMr. H. Nakaya, Office Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc., Detroit Office, 23777 Grenfield (sic) Road, Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. Detroit Office 23777 Grenfield (sic) Road Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standar No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.120). Specifically, you noted that section S5.2 of that standard required that certain information be labeled on the 'weather side' of each rim or wheel disc. You then offered your interpretation of the term 'weather side', and asked for my comments on that interpretation. My comment is that Standard No. 120 explicitly defines 'weather side', and that the definition of the term in Standard No. 120 is somewhat broader than your interpretation of the term.; Section S4 of Standard No. 120 contains the following definition 'Weather side' means the surface area of the rim not covered by the inflated tire. The interpretation you offered in your letter was consistent with this definition, because it would require that the information not be labeled in an area where it would be obscured by the inflated tire. However, your interpretation would also require that the information not be labeled in an area where it would be obscured by any axle mounting components, and this requirement is not contained in the definition set forth in Standard No. 120. You are free to use your narrower interpretation for your own purposes since it is consistent with the definition in the Standard, but the definition set forth in the Standard would be used to determine whether a rim complies with the requirements of the Standard.; Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions o need more information on the requirements of Standard No. 120.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2350OpenMr. Peter W. Mole, Pacet International, 1192 First Avenue, New York, NY 10021; Mr. Peter W. Mole Pacet International 1192 First Avenue New York NY 10021; Dear Mr. Mole:#This is in response to your June 15, 1976, questio whether Arcoflex windshield wiper blades must be certified as being in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards before they may be sold as aftermarket equipment through vehicle distributors' dealer parts programs.#Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*, requires vehicles to be equipped with a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets specified performance requirements. It is up to vehicle manufacturers to certify that each vehicle they produce conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 104, in accordance with the certification procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 567.#Standard No. 104 is not an equipment standard, however, and is not applicable to wiper blades sold in the aftermarket. Therefore, there is no requirement that Arcoflex windshield wiper blades be certified, so long as they are not installed on vehicles as part of the wiping system prior to the first sale of the vehicle.#Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5495OpenThe Honorable Nick Smith Member, United States House of Representatives 121 South Cochran Avenue Charlotte, MI 48813; The Honorable Nick Smith Member United States House of Representatives 121 South Cochran Avenue Charlotte MI 48813; "Dear Mr. Smith: Thank you for your letter regarding the inquiry fro your constituent, Dave Globig of Spring Arbor College, concerning Federal requirements for the transportation of school children. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations on this subject. Mr. Globig's understanding is that Federal law 'will not allow certification of any vans made after 1995 and, after 1997, will not allow any vans to be certified.' You stated that Mr. Globig was concerned about purchasing expensive vehicles and finding out later that 'they cannot be certified.' By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of school bus safety standards that ensures that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation. These standards require school buses to have safety features that include emergency exits, strengthened body panel joints, protective seating and special lamps and mirrors. Our regulations require manufacturers to self-certify the compliance of their vehicles. Our regulations also require each person selling a new school bus to sell only buses that have been certified by the manufacturer as meeting these school bus safety standards. Under our regulations, a motor vehicle, including a van, designed to carry 11 or more persons (including the driver) is classified as a 'bus.' A 'school bus' is defined as a bus that is sold 'for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events.' The term 'school' refers to preprimary, primary, and secondary school. With regard to Mr. Globig's belief that after 1995, Federal law will not allow any vans to be certified, there is no such prohibition going in effect. NHTSA has no requirement that would prevent a manufacturer from certifying its van as meeting all applicable FMVSSs, including the school bus standards, if the vehicle in fact complied with those standards. There are two issues we would like to bring to Mr. Globig's attention. The first issue relates to which requirements apply to the use of school vehicles. The responsibility for complying with our school bus requirements rests with the manufacturer and seller of a new bus. The school purchaser, on the other hand, has no obligation under our regulations to purchase and use a complying school bus, or any other type of vehicle. Since Federal law applies only to the manufacture and sale of a new vehicle, under our regulations, a school may use any vehicle it chooses to transport its students. NHTSA does not have the authority to prevent a school from using any of its vehicles. Once a new vehicle has been sold, the use of that vehicle becomes subject to state law. Thus, Mr. Globig should contact state officials for information about any requirements Michigan might have concerning the use of vans as school vehicles. NHTSA strongly recommends that school children only be carried in vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards. We have enclosed for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. 401, et seq., which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines to which states may refer in developing their own highway safety programs. Guideline 17, jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration, provides recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. The Guideline recommends, among other things, that any school vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons should comply with all Federal safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. The second issue concerns the meaning of 'school' with respect to our school bus safety standards. The school bus safety requirements apply only to new buses used to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary school children. If Mr. Globig is asking about a college, such an institution is not considered a 'school' as that term is used in our regulations. Therefore, new buses sold for transporting college students are not required to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to your constituent. Should Mr. Globig have additional questions or need additional information, he should feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
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.