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: aiam0855OpenMr. E. M. Anderson, Vice President, Ingram Manufacturing Co., P.O. Box 2020, San Antonio, TX 78297; Mr. E. M. Anderson Vice President Ingram Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 2020 San Antonio TX 78297; Dear Mr. Anderson: I apologize for the delay in answering your letter regarding Part 566 Manufacturer Identification. You describe the vehicles you manufacture and ask whether you are a manufacturer within the meaning of the regulation and therefore required to submit information regarding your products.; Part 566 applies to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicl equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. 'Motor vehicle' is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highway'. Since the portable tandem rollers you describe appear to be manufactured for construction or farm use you are not considered a manufacturer of motor vehicles and are not covered by Part 566. Therefore you are not required to submit information under that regulation. For similar reasons you are not covered by the certification requirements of Part 567 and 568 which you also mentioned.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1747OpenMr. Ralph Millet, Saab-Scania of America, Inc., P. O. Box 697, Orange, CT 06477; Mr. Ralph Millet Saab-Scania of America Inc. P. O. Box 697 Orange CT 06477; Dear Mr. Millet: This is to confirm the opinion which I gave to you at our January 8 1975, meeting that Saab's defect notification campaign involving 99E, LE, and EMS models with leakage problems in the fuel injection system is subject to the recent amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470), which became effective December 26, 1974. These amendments require Saab to remedy the defect without charge and do not permit Saab's limiting the remedy without charge to vehicles brought in for repair before July 1, 1975. A revised letter must indicate in accordance with Section 153 of the amendments that Saab will remedy the vehicles without charge. Section 153 also requires certain information not presently required to be included in all notification letters. Section 153(a)(5) requires the notification to state the earliest date on which the defect will be remedied and section 153(a)(6) requires the inclusion of a 'description of the procedure to be followed by the recipient of the notification in informing the Secretary' if Saab fails or is unable to remedy without charge.; We do not believe the notification letter which you mailed on Decembe 26, 1974, conforms to these requirements. With respect to the date of remedy, you state that the parts are 'now available' to dealers. Because remedy without charge is contingent upon actual dates, we believe the inclusion of a specific date is required. Moreover, that date should reflect the fact that dealers have actually received parts, rather than that parts are merely available to them. The reference to availability is ambiguous, in our view, for it does not reveal whether manufacturers in fact are prepared at that time to make necessary repairs. You must also include information that is responsive to section 153(a)(6). As the procedures referred to have not been published, it is sufficient if you advise owners that they can write the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, if they find Saab to have failed or to have been unable to perform the repair satisfactorily.; In other respects, we believe your letter does meet the requirements o section 153. Revised letters should be sent to all owners who have not had their vehicles repaired at the time of mailing, and should be mailed as expeditiously as possible after Saab receives the names of registered owners it has ordered.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4545OpenMr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administrative Department Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-Ken Japan; Mr. M. Iwase Manager Technical Administrative Department Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-shi Shizuoka-Ken Japan; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1988 asking whether location of a stop and taillamp on a deck lid would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In your opinion this is acceptable because the vehicle complies with the trunk lid closed. You have also asked, alternatively, whether the deck lid is an acceptable location for turn signal lamps. Section S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires lighting devices to be mounted on 'a rigid part of the vehicle...that is not designed to be removed except for repair'. In past interpretations the agency has stated that a deck lid is 'a rigid part of the vehicle', and that compliance with the standard will be determined with the deck lid closed. Thus, it may be used for mounting lamps and reflectors required by Standard No. 108. However, Table IV specifies the location for rear lamps. Stoplamps, taillamps, rear turn signal lamps, and rear reflex reflectors must be mounted 'as far apart as practicable'. Although the determination of practicability is initially made by the vehicle manufacturer, the agency in its enforcement efforts would consider whether lighting equipment mounted on the deck lid meets the requirements of Table IV. On the other hand, the separation requirement is not specified for backup lamps and license plate lamps. I have enclosed for your information a copy of a l980 interpretation that addressed a similar question. As you will note, the agency raised some safety concerns in that letter which could also pertain to your design. Operation of a motor vehicle in the United States is subject to the laws of the individual States, some of which may prohibit operation of a vehicle when its turn signals and stop lamps are not visible. In summary, we urge you to consider the issues described above, including those raised in the l980 letter, in deciding whether to proceed with this design. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam3280OpenMr. Hisakazu Murakami, Technical Representative, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 57105, Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 57105 Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning folding jump seats you intend to install in some future van models that your company manufactures. You ask whether the seats would qualify as 'designated seating positions', for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term 'designated seating position' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:; >>>any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least a large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, *except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats* . . . . (emphasis added).; << |
|
ID: aiam2887OpenMr. R. W. Cheetham, Director, Quality Assurance, The Armstrong Rubber Company, 500 Sargent Drive, New Haven, CT 06507; Mr. R. W. Cheetham Director Quality Assurance The Armstrong Rubber Company 500 Sargent Drive New Haven CT 06507; Dear Mr. Cheetham: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1978, requestin approval of the tread labels Armstrong Rubber Company proposes to use in satisfaction of the labeling requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS)(49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). You propose to include the applicable UTQGS grades for a particular tire on a tread label identifying the tire brand, type and size. A separate label would contain the general grading information from Figure 2 of the rule, including a listing of all possible traction and temperature grades, with the text on the label oriented along the tread circumference instead of across it.; Part 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) requires that each passenger car replacemen tire, other than a snow tire or temporary use spare tire, have affixed a tread label containing both the specific UTQGS grades for the tire and an explanation of the grades in the form illustrated in Figure 2. Thus, the specific grades for the tire must appear on the same label that contains the explanation of the grading system. The regulation calls for a depiction of all possible traction and temperature grades with the grades applicable to the specific tire indelibly circled.; While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has n objection to the inclusion of the required UTQGS information on the same label with other data such as tire size and brand name, failure to provide the required explanations on the same label with the applicable tire grades is not permitted by the regulation. Your proposed labels also fail to meet the regulation's requirement that applicable traction and temperature grades be denoted by circling the appropriate letter in a display of all possible grades. Finally, the general UTQGS information in your proposal is not in the form illustrated in Figure 2, since the text in your example will appear along the tread rather than at right angles as specified by Figure 2.; While your proposed tread labels do not meet the present requirement of Part 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B), NHTSA will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking and consider amending the UTQG regulation to permit greater flexibility in tread labeling.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3795OpenMr. Frank Pepe, Assistant Vice President, Engineering Services Division, United States Testing Company, Inc., 1415 Park Avenue, Hoboken, NJ 07030; Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Services Division United States Testing Company Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken NJ 07030; Dear Mr. Pepe: This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 209, *Sea Belt Assemblies*. You asked several questions about the requirements applicable to a Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractor utilizing a tension reducer device. The particular device you are concerned about is, according to your letter, activated by the vehicle door. With the door open the mechanism operates in a high tension mode, with the door closed the mechanism is in a low tension mode.; By way of background information, this agency does not grant approval of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Safety Standard No. 209 specifies requirements concerning minimum an maximum retraction force. Requirements are specified for both initial retraction force and retraction force after a test sequence which includes lengthy retractor cycling. See sections S4.3(j), (k) and S5.2(k).; As you know, retractors have traditionally had only one rather than tw tension modes. Standard No. 209 does not prohibit a design with two tension modes. However, as written, the standard's requirements do not distinguish between tension modes.; We agree with your suggestion that both tension modes should be teste for retraction force effort as specified in the standard. However, we do not agree with your suggestion that the high tension mode should only be tested for minimum retraction force and the low tension mode for maximum retraction force. Instead, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, we interpret the standard to require that all of its requirements must be met in both tension modes. For example, under section S4.3(j)(6), both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the 0.2 to 1.5 pound range. For testing purposes, of course, a single retractor could only be fully tested for one of the two modes, since testing for both modes would involve twice the amount of cycling required by the standard.; Your letter states that since the high tension mode is used only fo stowing the webbing and is not in operation during normal use, you believe that only cycling tests without lock-ups should be performed in testing. While we appreciate this argument, the standard, as written, does not permit that exception. Section S5.2(k) states in relevant part:; >>>...An emergency-locking retractor or a nonlocking retractor attache to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension. The locking mechanism of an emergency locking retractor shall be actuated at least 10,000 times within 50 to 100 percent extension of webbing during the 50,000 cycles....<<<; Since the standard does not distinguish between tension modes, lock-up should be performed in testing for both the low and high tension modes.; As already noted, the retractor in question represents a new desig which was not specifically considered in drafting Standard No. 209. If the standard as written creates problems, the manufacturer may wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend the standard to establish special test procedures.; Your letter suggests that there may be a conflict between sectio S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 209's 0.2 pound retraction force requirement (section S4.3(j)). However, section S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208 only applies to automatic belt systems, while section S5.3(j) of Standard No. 209 only applies to active belt systems. Therefore, there can be no conflict.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4050OpenMr. R. C. Attwood, ASE (UK) Ltd., Norfolk Street, Carlisle, Cumbria, ENGLAND CA2 5HX; Mr. R. C. Attwood ASE (UK) Ltd. Norfolk Street Carlisle Cumbria ENGLAND CA2 5HX; Dear Mr. Attwood: Thank you for your letter of October 8, 1985, concerning the safet belt anchorage requirements of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You asked a question about the anchorage requirements that would apply to a two point automatic safety belt, which has a separate manual lap belt. You asked if it is permissible for the two anchorages of the automatic belt and the two anchorages of the manual lap belt to be located outside of the zones specified in Standard No. 210, if three additional anchorages are located within Standard No. 210's zones. As explained below, the design you described would be permissible, assuming that you are voluntarily providing the manual lap belt.; Section S4.1.1 of the standard requires anchorages for a Type 2 safet belt to be provided at each front outboard seating position. Sections S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 set out the location requirements for Type 2 belts. However, S4.3 provides that the anchorages for automatic restraints which meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, do not have to meet the location requirements of the standard.; In interpreting the location requirement, the agency has said that al of the anchorages for an automatic belt may be located outside of the zones specified in Standard No. 210, as long as there are the three anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt located within the zone. Since your design for the automatic belt would provide three anchorages within the required zone, it would be permissible as long as the anchorages meet the strength requirements of the standard.; If you are voluntarily providing the manual lap belt, then it anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210 as long as the use of the lap belt would not degrade the ability of the automatic lap belt to comply with Standard No. 208. However, if you are providing the lap belt to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208, then the lap belt would have to have anchorages complying with Standard No. 210.; I hope this information is of assistance. If you have any furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1252OpenMr. Ray Hartman, Vice President, Engineering, Crown Coach Corporation, 2500 East Twelfth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021; Mr. Ray Hartman Vice President Engineering Crown Coach Corporation 2500 East Twelfth Street Los Angeles CA 90021; Dear Mr. Hartman: This is in reply to your letter of August 28, 1973, concerning th effective date of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. Your direct question is whether the effective date is the starting or completion date for the vehicle's components or the starting date for the vehicle.; Standard No. 121 applies to the vehicle and its effective dat therefore relates to the vehicle, rather than to any of its components. A vehicle completed after the effective date will have to meet the standard, even though it is equipped with a foundation brake system that was manufactured before the effective date.; The vehicle's completion date, rather than its starting date, is th date that determines whether it must conform to the standard. If your company manufactures its vehicles from the ground up, rather than installing a body on a vehicle built by another manufacturer, the relevant completion date is the date you complete your manufacturing operation. However, if you buy an incomplete vehicle, as defined in our regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568), and complete that vehicle, you may choose as the completion date for purposes of Standard No. 121 the date on which the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle finished his work, the date on which you completed the vehicle or any date in between.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4400OpenMr. Tom George, P.O. Box 475, Howard, KS 67349; Mr. Tom George P.O. Box 475 Howard KS 67349; Dear Mr. George: Secretary Dole has asked me to respond to your letter to her, in whic you asked why we believe it is necessary to have laws mandating the use of safety belts. You stated that you believe a public education campaign about safety belt use would have been sufficient. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our position to you.; During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways Each year, an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic deaths and injuries have resulted in an annual cost to society of approximately 57 billion dollars resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenue.; Numerous analyses have shown that safety belts reduce fatalities b 40-50 percent and reduce serious injuries by 45-55 percent. I have enclosed copies of a safety belt fact sheet and several pamphlets we have published explaining how and why safety belts are so effective. Because of the extensive body of evidence about the effectiveness of safety belts, the United States Supreme Court has said, 'We start with the accepted ground that, if used, seatbelts unquestionably would save many thousands of lives and would prevent tens of thousands of crippling injuries.'; This Department and other groups tried many public education efforts t make these facts known to the public, with the anticipation that more people would use safety belts when they knew the facts. Despite these efforts, the rate of usage for safety belts did not change substantially from what it had been in 1967. As recently as 1983, the overall safety belt usage rate for front seat occupants was only slightly above 12 percent.; This trend suggested that public education campaigns *alone* would no substantially reduce unnecessary deaths and injuries on our highways. In an effort to protect their citizens by substantially reducing vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and to reduce the financial burden on their taxpayers, 29 States and the District of Columbia have enacted safety belt use laws. I want to emphasize that each of these State legislatures made their own decisions with respect to safety belt use laws. This Department neither has nor seeks any authority to withhold Federal funds if States do not adopt or repeal safety belt use laws. We do, however, believe that safety belt use laws are more than justified by the possibility of achieving substantial reductions in vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and reducing the financial burden on the taxpayers. The available data show that among front seat occupants, safety belts saved about 2,200 lives in 1986, and 1,750 of those lives were saved in States that have safety belt use laws.; We agree with you, however, that safety belt use laws *alone* may no ensure long-term increased usage of safety belts. Simply requiring persons to wear their safety belts does not get to the heart of the problem of non- usage: lack of knowledge and negative attitudes regarding occupant restraints. Experience has shown that a combination of usage requirements *and* information and education campaigns are the most effective way to get more people to wear their safety belts. Therefore, we have continued our public information and education campaigns about safety belts, as has the State of Kansas. As a result of these combined efforts, our most recent data show that the overall safety belt usage rate for front seat occupants is now slightly above 40 percent.; We in the Department of Transportation are committed to reducing a much as possible the deaths and injuries on our nation's roads. This mission can only succeed with the cooperation and input of concerned citizens like yourself. Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns, and please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns about our programs.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0910OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, Factory Representative Office, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of October 2, 1972, concerning th requirements applicable to a seat belt installed as part of a restraint system conforming to S4.1.2.3 of Standard 208.; You are correct in reading S4.1.2.3 to provide that a seat belt capabl of meeting the injury criteria of Standard 208 is not required to meet Standard 209 except as provided in S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard 208.; We have under consideration a petition from the Japan Automobil Manufacturers Association to amend Standard 209 to reflect the exemption made in Standard 208. The agency's response to the petition will be issued shortly.; 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.