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: aiam1333OpenMr. Charles R. Mosley, Chief of Police, Cleveland Police Department, Cleveland, MS 38732; Mr. Charles R. Mosley Chief of Police Cleveland Police Department Cleveland MS 38732; Dear Mr. Mosley: Your correspondence of October 17, 1973, on the subject of approval fo motorcycle helmets has been forwarded to this office for reply.; I am enclosing, for your information, a copy of Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 218, which establishes requirements for motorcycle helmets effective March 1, 1974. The requirements of this standard will take precedence over other standards which cover like aspects of safety, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. There will be no list of 'approved' helmets, since all helmets manufactured for sale in the United States on or after the effective date must be certified to meet all requirements of the standard.; I trust the foregoing will be helpful. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1299OpenMr. George R. Semark, Safety Engineer - Vehicles, Planning & Development Center, Transportation Group, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 1200 East Kibby Street, Lima, OH 45802; Mr. George R. Semark Safety Engineer - Vehicles Planning & Development Center Transportation Group Sheller-Globe Corporation 1200 East Kibby Street Lima OH 45802; Dear Mr. Semark: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, requesting tha Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus window Retention and Release,' be amended to include buses of the same design as school buses within the exemption from the emergency exit requirements specified for school buses' in S5.2.3 of the standard.; The NHTSA takes the position that buses of the same design as buse specifically designed as school buses, regardless of their intended use, are school buses for purposes of Standard No. 217. They are, therefore, exempt from the emergency exit requirements of the standard as specified in S5.2.3. No amendment of the standard is necessary.; Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4561OpenMr. Richard R. Lender President Coachland, inc. 3361 Lansing Road, Rt. 7 Charlotte, MI 48813; Mr. Richard R. Lender President Coachland inc. 3361 Lansing Road Rt. 7 Charlotte MI 48813; "Dear Mr. Lender: This responds to your November 10, 1988 lette concerning the importation of windshields for vintage buses produced from 1955 through 1962. You indicated that these windshields are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), but asserted that the windshields 'do meet all other regulations.' You suggested that you ought to be permitted to import these windshields even though they are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, because the windshields will only fit buses manufactured between 1955 and 1962, whereas Standard No. 205 did not become effective until January 1, 1968. This suggestion is incorrect. Your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling windshields that are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205 if the windshields were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. I have recently discussed this topic at length in a September 12, 1988 letter to Mr. Steve Zlotkin (copy enclosed). To briefly repeat, Standard No. 205 requires all items of glazing material for use in motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of the standard) to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. It is the date of manufacture of the glazing material itself, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing material will be installed, that determines whether the glazing material must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205. Your letter indicated that your company conferred with Mr. Francis Armstrong, formerly the director of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, and that you 'were given permission' to import similar windshields in 1985. I regret any misunderstanding you may have had of the long-established agency position on this question as a result of this conference. The agency's interpretation that it is the date of manufacture of the glazing that determines whether it is subject to Standard No. 205, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing is to be installed, was first announced in a May 8, 1967 letter to Mr. Earl Kintner (copy enclosed). Every time the agency has been asked this question for the past 21 years, it has repeated the position originally taken in the letter to Mr. Kintner. If anyone in this agency has ever given you or your company a different response to this question, the response did not reflect the agency's position. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1763OpenMr. J.E. Brune, President,Bauer-Wenner Inc.,146 South Westwood Avenue,Toledo, Ohio 43607; Mr. J.E. Brune President Bauer-Wenner Inc. 146 South Westwood Avenue Toledo Ohio 43607; Dear Mr. Brune:#Please forgive the delay in responding to your lette of November 26, 1974, asking several questions on the banding requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*.#Your first question dealt with the banding responsibilities of fleet owners. S5.2.4 as incorporated in S7.2 of Standard No. 106-74, in its present form, requires each fleet owner who makes up brake hose assemblies for his own use to label each assembly with a band and to file a designation that identifies him as the manufacturer of the assembly with the Office of Standards Enforcement. An amendment of this requirements is under active consideration, and the issue will be dealt with in a forthcoming notice in the Federal Register. #Your remaining question dealt with your responsibilities as a manufacturer of air brake hose assemblies. Each hose assembly which you produce and which is ultimately used in a brake system is an air brake hose assembly within the meaning of Standard No. 106-74. Each of these is therefore subject to the labeling and performance requirements of the standard, including the banding requirement of S7.2. Your responsibility, under Sections 108(a) (1) (A) and 108(b) (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. Secs. 1397(a) (1) (A) and 1397 (b) (2)), is to 'exercise due care' in ensuring that each assembly which is ultimately used in a brake system conforms to the requirements of the standard. What constitutes due care in a particular situation depends on all relevant facts. For example, if you ask each walk-in customer (or telephone customer) who orders an assembly whether he plans to use it in an air brake system, it would appear that you may refrain from banding those assemblies which you are assured are not destined for air brake systems. For mail-orders, a notice on your invoice, instructing your customers to inform you if the intended use of the assemblies they have ordered, would not fulfill your obligation if the invoices are received after the orders have been filled. The simplest way to meet your responsibilities might be to band all assemblies which consist of hose of a diameter known to be used in air brake system.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0871OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, RVI Washington Counsel, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., Suite 406, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC, 20006; Mr. David J. Humphreys RVI Washington Counsel Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. Suite 406 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of August 18, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to motor homes.; You ask whether the standard would be applicable to wood flooring tha lies immediately under carpeting which is attached to the wood flooring by staples and which forms an interior floor covering over either the wheel housing or over the flooring in general. Paragraph S4.1 lists 'floor coverings' among the components required to meet the requirements of the standard. Since carpeting is a floor covering, it would have to meet the requirements of the standard. The flooring underneath the carpeting would not be considered a 'floor covering' and, accordingly, would not have to meet the requirements. Because the flooring is not listed as a component to which the standard applies, the issue of whether the carpeting-flooring-staples combination is a composite material under Paragraph S4.2(b) of the standard does not arise.; In general, any method of joining materials may be a 'mechanica attachment' subject to the standard if it achieves an intimate joining of separate materials in any given component. The question is not so much how the attachment is made, but how closely spaced are the attachment points.; You ask further whether the standard would apply to wheel housin covers where the wheel housing or a portion thereof would not be exposed to the interior of the vehicle. Although wheel housing covers are included in Paragraph S4.1, any component subject to the standard must also be included within the general language of that Paragraph, which only refers to materials used in 'vehicle occupant compartments.' If the wheel housing cover or any portion of it is or may be exposed to the occupant compartment, such as by the folding of seats, beds, or other movable components, then it is subject to the requirements of the standard. If it is fully separated from the occupant compartment by a nonremovable barrier when any interior component is used (including folding or convertible seats or beds), then it is considered to be outside the occupant compartment and not subject to the requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1276OpenMr. E.J. Johnson, Administrator, Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration, 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E., Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061; Mr. E.J. Johnson Administrator Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration 6601 Ritchie Highway N.E. Glen Burnie Maryland 21061; Dear Mr. Johnson: This is in further response to correspondence dated JUly 10, 1973 between the Maryland Department of Transportation and Mr. Bernard Nolan. Mr. Nolan had written to the Maryland State Attorney General's Office regarding the practice of tire dealers of selling tires that have been relabeled 'tube type' by their manufacturer, while representing that it was not necessary, and may even be unsafe, to install tubes in them. You attach a memorandum to you from Mr. Thomas J. Widerman which concludes that the practice does not violate any Federal or State law but recommend that Maryland's proposed tire safety standard be amended to prohibit the practice. You indicate to Mr. Nolan that you are forwarding the matter to this agency for appropriate action.; We believe this practice involves at least a technical violation of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1)) prohibits, among other things,the sale of motor vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date of an applicable safety standard that does not conform to the standard.; We believe a person who sells a 'tube type' tire as a tubeless tire i at least representing that the tire will meet the Federal standard applicable to tires, No. 109, without a tube. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate under the Safety Act to test that tire to the standard as a tubeless tire and, if failure occurs, to initiate civil penalty proceeding against the tire seller. That seller may also be liable for civil penalties for certifying the tire as conforming in a false and misleading manner (Sec 108(a) (3) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1397(a) (3)).; I am therefore referring the matter to our enforcement personnel wit the recommendation that they inquire into the matter.; However, I also concur with the recommendation of Mr. Widerman that specific prohibition against this practice be made part of Maryland law. NHTSA's enforcement procedures are civil in nature, and involve determinations that products fail to meet technical tests which are time consuming and costly to run. State criminal procedures would, in our view, be far more effective than NHTSA's procedures in dealing with situations such as this.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4074OpenMr. Takeshi Tanuma, Chief Operating Office, Nissan Research & Development, Inc., 3995 Research Park Drive, P.O. Box 8650, Ann Arbor, MI 48104; Mr. Takeshi Tanuma Chief Operating Office Nissan Research & Development Inc. 3995 Research Park Drive P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor MI 48104; Dear Mr. Tanuma: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Part 541 *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. You asked two separate questions which are discussed in detail below.; First, you stated that you plan to introduce a 1987 carline in Marc 1986. This particular carline has been selected as one that will be subject to the requirements of Part 541. However, Part 541 does not become effective until April 24, 1986. You stated your belief that the introduction of the 1987 vehicles in that carline before the effective date of Part 541 means that none of the 1987 vehicles in that carline will be required to comply with Part 541. Your belief is correct.; As you noted, the effective date for Part 541 is April 24, 1986. Thi effective date means that Part 541 applies to all selected carlines beginning with the 1987 model year. However, the legislative history for Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 *et seq*.), which Title requires that Part 541 be promulgated, expressly states: 'The theft prevention standard cannot apply to a car in the middle of the model year.' H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 11 (1984).; For purposes of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, NHTSA believes tha the model year for a carline begins on the day on which a vehicle in that carline is introduced into commerce in the United States. Thus, if a 1987 model year vehicle in a carline is introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541, the 1987 model year for that carline would have begun prior to the effective date of the theft prevention standard. Obviously, the requirements of a standard do not apply before the effective date. Given the clear expression of Congressional intent that this theft prevention standard cannot apply to a carline in the middle of its model year, NHTSA concludes that a 1987 model year version of a carline introduced into commerce before the effective date of the theft prevention standard is not subject to the requirements of the theft prevention standard for the 1987 model year. That selected carline would, of course, be subject to Part 541 in the 1988 and subsequent model years.; Second, you stated that Nissan plans to affix a metal plate to th engines and transmissions of carlines selected for coverage under Part 541. You asked whether such a metal plate would appear to comply with the requirements of S541.5(d)(1).; You are correct in assuming that all markings which are affixed to part, whether by means of adhesive, special screws, rivets, or welding, are considered 'labels' and must satisfy the requirements of S541.5(d)(1). However, section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act 915 U.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each *manufacturer* to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or certify that a vehicle or method of marking complies with the theft prevention standard.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1626OpenMr. Harold N. Wirt, Vice President - Operations, Krown Manufacturing Company, Inc., 1165 Reynolds Road, Charlotte, MI 48813; Mr. Harold N. Wirt Vice President - Operations Krown Manufacturing Company Inc. 1165 Reynolds Road Charlotte MI 48813; Dear Mr. Wirt: This is in reference to your letter of October 4, 1974, concerning you recall campaign (NHTSA No. 74-0124) involving improperly machined P.O.L. nipples which were attached to L.P. gas regulators furnished by the Marshall Brass Company for use on camping trailers.; Since your company had not determined that a safety-related defec within the meaning of the National Highway Traffic Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) existed until after receipt of our letter of September 23, 1974, we agree with your reasoning that the first quarterly report should cover the period ending December 31, 1974.; Although your revised owner notification letter is not technicall correct, it appears to be adequate from the owner's point of view. An additional revision and mailing will therefore not be necessary. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter is incorrect in that it states that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator has determined the existence of the safety-related defect. Our letter of September 23, 1974, did not constitute a formal determination by the Administrator, but was merely intended to explain your company's legal obligations and to persuade your company to make such a determination. Since you stated in your letter of August 5, 1974, that a potential defect exists, but only expressed your opinion that the Act did not apply, it was felt that a defect determination by your company was likely to occur. A campaign number was therefore assigned for recordkeeping purposes.; The second sentence of your letter should also have described th defect as existing in the vehicle itself, rather than describing the defective part. The reference to 'item of motor vehicle equipment' in Part 577.4(b) refers only to campaigns in which vehicles are not involved.; It is hoped that these comments will assist you if the necessity o conducting another safety defect notification campaign should ever occur in the future.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0934OpenMr. Arthur B. Chivvis, Executive Director, Urethane Safety Group, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., 250 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10017; Mr. Arthur B. Chivvis Executive Director Urethane Safety Group The Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. 250 Park Avenue New York NY 10017; Dear Mr. Chivvis: Thank you for your letter of December 6, 1972, to Mr. Douglas Toms regarding terminology used in flammability tests and your concern for usage of positive designations instead of description terms.; We concur in the need to use terminology that can be standardized an universally understood as a means for preventing ambiguities. In view of the many flammability performance qualities that are subject to evaluation by test methods covering a wide range of exposure conditions, it is not surprising that descriptive terminology has found wide range.; We would appreciate receiving any definitions that your group ha adopted for flammability testing to standardize on terminology.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2909OpenMr. Brian Gill, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., P.O. Box 50, Gardena, California 90247; Mr. Brian Gill American Honda Motor Co. Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena California 90247; Dear Mr. Gill: This is in response to your letters of October 9, 1978, and October 20 1978, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle identification number*.; Since the agency was considering petition for reconsideration when you letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of a notice of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to further amend the standard are enclosed.; The type face shown in the attachment to your letter of October 9 1978, meets the requirements of S4.3.1. Since the standard does not specify a location for the placement of the VIN on motorcycles, it may be stamped on the certification label. However, Honda should also consider stamping the VIN on the cycle frame as well, to aid in recovery if the motorcycle is stolen.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.