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: aiam5452OpenVictor Larson, P.E. Cryenco, Inc. 3811 Joliet Street Denver, CO 80238; Victor Larson P.E. Cryenco Inc. 3811 Joliet Street Denver CO 80238; "Dear Mr. Larson: This responds to your FAX of May 17, 1994, wit reference to the application of conspicuity material to the sides of cryogenic tank trailers. You point out that the only side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road is at the center of the tank, approximately 90 inches above the road surface. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that conspicuity material can be placed at this location 'if that is the only available mounting area' and that it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface. We confirm your understanding. Standard No. 108 specified an original mounting height for conspicuity material as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to 'as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface.' The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range. The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers should mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers, in order to achieve the full conspicuity benefits of the material. In the case of your tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at a belt line that is 90 inches above the road surface would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material. You inform us that some trailers have rear and midship cabinets that could be used, in conjunction with the belt line location, to provide a location for striping, although this would result in a non-aligned striping pattern. With respect to trailers equipped with cabinets, you asked whether compliance would be satisfied if only the belt-line location is used. The answer is yes, provided that the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) is met, i.e., which provides that 'the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable.' Since the strip need not be continuous, this would allow discontinuities in a strip mounted at 90 inches in which the cabinets were not used. Your final question is the required orientation of striping for conspicuity, some of your customers have requested placement of material at a downward angle of approximately 30 degrees to accommodate their graphics better. The standard does not explicitly address the issue of orientation. However, as noted in response to your first question, trailer manufacturers should mount conspicuity material in a vertical plane, or as nearly thereto as the trailer shape allows, so that the full conspicuity benefits of the material may be realized. If there is no available vertical surface on which the material can be mounted, we urge that a wider stripe of conspicuity material be used to provide the minimum required performance at the installed downward angle. The manufacturer of the conspicuity material which you use should be able to determine whether an increase in the width of the striping would allow the material mounted at or near the downward angle that your customer prefers to provide performance comparable to a narrower strip mounted in a vertical plane. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1942OpenMr. Donald W. Segraves, Vice President, American Mutual Insurance Alliance, 20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606; Mr. Donald W. Segraves Vice President American Mutual Insurance Alliance 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago IL 60606; Dear Mr. Segraves: This is in response to your letter of May 9, 1975, expressing you opposition to any bumper requirement that would permit the elimination of the energy absorbers from motor vehicle bumper systems.; Your letter refers to a statement made by Mr. James Schultz in a May 7 1975, letter responding to your request for information concerning the cost-benefit trade-off involved in permitting damage to the bumper face bar components and associated fasteners. Mr. Schultz's comment that 'the proposed schedule for implementation of the surface damage criteria would not effect a lowering of the current level of bumper performance' was directed only at the exterior surface damage provisions which are proposed as part of a Part 581 damageability standard under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513).; With regard to the provisions of Standard No. 215, *Exterio Protection*, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's action to reduce the number of required longitudinal pendulum impacts was taken to bring the test requirements more in line with real-world conditions. As was explained in the May 7 letter, the number of required pendulum impacts has been revised to conform to the average number of low-speed impacts a vehicle will encounter in its lifetime. The ability of a vehicle to comply with the pendulum test requirements will therefore assure its ability to withstand the number of low-speed collisions in which it is likely to be involved.; We are not able to predict whether the reduced number of impacts wil enable removal of the energy absorbing devices from the bumper system. Nissan has stated that they will not be able to eliminate the energy absorbers. However, it remains possible that some manufacturers could at least reduce the size of the components.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0650OpenMr. Edward P. Shear, President, Champion Carriers, Inc., P.O. Box 2651, Tulsa, OK 74101; Mr. Edward P. Shear President Champion Carriers Inc. P.O. Box 2651 Tulsa OK 74101; Dear Mr. Shear: This is in response to your letter of January 25, 1972, wherein yo state that you manufacture 'off-highway vehicles for cranes, drill rigs and truck terminals' and request that we advise you of the requirements regarding manufacturer registration which became effective February 1, 1972. In a telephone conversation with Mr. David Fay of NHTSA on March 23, 1972, you indicated further that the type of vehicle you manufacture is represented by the picture at the bottom of your January 25 letter to us.; We would not consider these vehicles to be 'off-highway vehicles.' I our view they appear to be similar to truck tractors, and have a primary purpose of transporting other vehicles (which may be off-highway vehicles) over the public roads. Consequently, we would consider them to be trucks under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) and the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations issued pursuant to the Act.; As a manufacturer of such vehicles you must comply with th Manufacturer Identification regulations (49 CFR Part 566) and a copy of them is enclosed as you requested. Also enclosed is a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and information on how to obtain copies of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations.; If you have further questions, please write. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4613OpenMs. Melanie Turner Quality Control Diamond-Star Motors 100 North Diamond-Star Parkway Normal, Illinois 61761; Ms. Melanie Turner Quality Control Diamond-Star Motors 100 North Diamond-Star Parkway Normal Illinois 61761; "Dear Ms. Turner: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particularly interested in the marking requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. Before I address your specific questions, it might be helpful to provide some background information on the origin and purposes of those marking requirements. Different marking requirements apply depending upon whether your company is a 'prime glazing material manufacturer' or simply a manufacturer that cuts sections of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies. Section S6.1 of Standard No. 205 defines a 'prime glazing material manufacturer' as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. Sections S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205 set forth marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers. Section S6.1 requires prime glazing material manufacturers to mark each item of glazing material in accordance with section 6 of American National Standard 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (ANS Z-26). One of the requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26 is that a manufacturer mark its glazing with its own 'distinctive designation or trademark.' Section S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires prime glazing material manufacturers to mark each item of glazing material designed to be used in a specific vehicle with the symbol 'DOT' and a manufacturer code mark that is assigned by this agency. Section S6.3 requires prime glazing material manufacturers to certify compliance with Standard No. 205 for each piece of its glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies that is designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Sections S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205 set forth marking requirements that apply to each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies for use in a motor vehicle or camper. Section S6.4 requires the manufacturer or distributor to mark that material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section S6.5 requires the manufacturer or distributor to certify that its product complies with Standard No. 205. The purpose of these marking requirements is to help the agency identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. The difference in the marking requirements was designed to help the agency distinguish between glazing in a motor vehicle that had been manufactured by a prime glazing material manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. Your first question was whether the required markings must be located in any specified position on the glass, particularly the side door glass. No provision in either Standard No. 205 or ANS Z26 requires the manufacturer markings to appear in any specific position or area of the glazing. Hence, those required markings may appear anywhere on the glazing. Your second, third, and fourth questions were all concerned with the issue of whether the required markings must be visible after the glazing has been installed in a vehicle. The answer to this question is no. We first responded to this issue in an April 13, 1978 letter to Mr. Moe Pare, Jr. Mr. Pare had asked whether the certification markings required on glazing materials by Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation. We replied that: 'There is nothing in the certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle.' I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Pare for your information. We elaborated on our interpretation of this issue in an August 31, 1984 letter to Mr. K. Yamada of Toyota Motor Corporation (copy enclosed). In that letter, we said: The certification requirements of section S6 of Standard 205 do not require the markings to remain visible after installation of the glazing on a vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked its glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as the markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer, there is no prohibition against covering the markings. Your fifth question asked about specifications for the height of the lettering, point size, and dimensions for the required markings on glazing. As noted above, section S6.1 of Standard No. 205 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to mark glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section S6.4 of Standard No. 205 requires each manufacturer or distributor that cuts a section of glazing material for use in a motor vehicle or camper to mark the material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section 6 of ANS Z26 states that: ... all safety glazing materials manufactured for use in accordance with this code shall be legibly and permanently marked in letters and numerals at least 0.070 inch (1.78 mm) in height, with the words 'American National Standard' or the characters AS, and, in addition, with a model number that will identify the type of construction of the glazing material. They shall also be marked with the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. Footnote 27 in Section 6 of ANS Z26 reads: 'The model number shall be assigned by the manufacturer of the safety glazing material and shall be related by the manufacturer to a detailed description of a specific glazing material.' Your sixth and final question asked about the required content of the manufacturer certification and marking requirements for items of glazing. As noted above, the marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers are set forth in sections S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205. The marking requirements for manufacturers and distributors that cut a section of glazing material for use in a motor vehicle or camper are set forth in sections S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1411OpenMr. A. M. Fischer, Engineering Division, Mack Trucks, Inc., P. O. Box 1761, Allentown, PA, 18105; Mr. A. M. Fischer Engineering Division Mack Trucks Inc. P. O. Box 1761 Allentown PA 18105; Dear Mr. Fischer: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1974, concerning th location requirements of front identification lamps on certain solid-waste disposal vehicles.; You describe the vehicles in question as 'short BBC low cab-over-engin type vehicles -- equipped with a large volume body and a hydraulically operated front loader mechanism. This unit lifts containers of waste up and over the front of the cab and empties the waste into the top of the body. To prevent damage to the front of the vehicle and lamps, a protective guard is installed on the front centerline of the vehicle.' You further state that 'This guard could obstruct the center identification lamp.'; You ask whether or not all three of the front identification lamps ma be offset from the front centerline of the vehicle to ensure compliance with the visibility requirements of FMVSS No. 108. In accordance with paragraph S4.3.1, Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that the front identification lamps be located 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline.' For the vehicles which you have described, it would appear that location of the front identification lamps either left or right of the vertical centerline would meet this requirement.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4243OpenRichard E. Bond, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Holiday Rambler Corporation, 65528 St. Road 19, Wakarusa, IN 46573; Richard E. Bond Esq. Assistant General Counsel Holiday Rambler Corporation 65528 St. Road 19 Wakarusa IN 46573; Dear Mr. Bond: This responds to your letter for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565 *Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements*. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; The hypothetical situation discussed in your letter refers to corporation which has manufactured vehicle X for several years. The corporation forms a wholly-owned subsidiary to which it transfers the manufacturing operations of vehicle X. You state that the subsidiary corporation will continue to manufacture vehicle X and ask if the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is authorized to transfer the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code for the corporation to the wholly-owned subsidiary.; In a telephone conversation with Elizabeth Harrison of this office, yo stated that Holiday Rambler is considering transferring the manufacture of commercial cargo trailers to a wholly-owned subsidiary. You also said that the new subsidiary would be responsible for certifying compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and reporting any safety-related defects for these trailers.; Section 4(a) of Part 565 requires the first three characters of vehicle identification number (VIN) to identify uniquely the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. You indicated that less than 500 commercial cargo trailers are produced each year, therefore, the first three characters of the VIN together with the third, fourth, and fifth characters of the fourth section of the VIN must uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle. As you know, SAE is authorized by NHTSA to assign manufacturer identifiers.; This agency has not authorized SAE to transfer WMI codes under th circumstances described above. If the WMI code for these trailers, which are now manufactured by Holiday Rambler, were transferred to a new subsidiary, then the WMI would no longer *uniquely* identify the manufacturer. Therefore, your corporation should request the assignment of a new WMI for the subsidiary and not use the WMI assigned to Holiday Rambler for these trailers, if the subsidiary is formed. The new identifier and the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in the VIN must be submitted to this agency under the reporting requirements of section 5 of Part 565.; Please note that the subsidiary must also inform NHTSA under 49 CF Part 566, *Manufacturer Identifier*, of its corporate name and the types of vehicles or vehicle equipment which it will manufacture, and comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3586OpenMr. William R. Harris, Jr., Harris Enterprises, Box 999-94, Westport, CT 06880; Mr. William R. Harris Jr. Harris Enterprises Box 999-94 Westport CT 06880; Dear Mr. Harris: This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 1982, to Mr. Vinson of thi office with regard to your 'new motorcycle lighting system' and asking about possible conflicts with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your device is an 'aftermarket accessory' light which may be mounted t a motorcycle helmet, and which is integrated by a cord into the motorcycle's headlighting system, providing an auxiliary beam of light in conjunction with the beam of light projected by the main headlamp.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflectiv Devices, and Associated Equipment*, is the standard on vehicle lighting and lighting equipment while Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, is the other standard of relevance. Neither standard directly addresses an aftermarket device such as your and as your lamp is intended to be installed by the helmet owner, it does not appear to conflict with any other regulatory prohibition of this agency. It would, therefore, be subject to regulation by the individual States in which the device is worn.; We see nothing in your correspondence that legally qualifies a 'sensitive proprietary information', and our interpretation will be given its usual circulation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1041OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in response to your letter of January 9, 1973, concerning th application of Standard 209 to emergency locking mechanisms that Toyota intends to use in its 1974 models. Mr. Suzuki of your staff presented Toyota's problem at greater length in a meeting with NHTSA on March 2, 1973, and the following response serves to confirm the opinion given him at that time.; Both the central G-sensing device (with its computer) and th individual solenoids on the retractors are considered to be seat belt assembly hardware for purposes of Standard 209. We do not find that the central position of the G-sensor is a sufficient reason to exclude it from the requirements of the standard applicable to hardware, including the corrosion requirements. However, any corrosion testing of the G-sensor would be performed with the sensor's covering in place. If the covering is impervious to water, as Mr. Suzuki stated, there should be little difficulty in passing the test.; A second question was raised by Mr. Suzuki concerning the testing o the upper torso retractor. It is our opinion that the retractor should be subjected to the environmental tests in its installed condition, with its cover in place.; A final question presented by Mr. Suzuki concerns the allowable widt for that portion of the upper torso belt that does not contact the occupant. As we informed him the August 1972 petition by JAMA on this subject is still open and we anticipate that the agency's action will be favorable.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2801OpenMr. William N. Whitley, Vice President, Whitley-Whitley Inc., 26000 Chagrin Boulevard, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; Mr. William N. Whitley Vice President Whitley-Whitley Inc. 26000 Chagrin Boulevard Shaker Heights Ohio 44122; Dear Mr. Whitley: This is in reply to your letter of January 17, 1978, in which you aske for a definition of the automobile-mounted camping unit illustrated in Design Patent No. 198,497.; The automobile-mounted camping unit would be classified as a 'Slide-i camper' and would be regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading. We are enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 126 and a copy of an amendment dated April 21, 1978. The complete Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standards (FMVSS) and Regulations may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents by using the enclosed subscription order form.; Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Acting Associate Administrator fo Rulemaking; |
|
ID: aiam3713OpenMr. Jim Cowen, Manager, Able Body Company, P.O. Box 1868, Joplin, MO 64802; Mr. Jim Cowen Manager Able Body Company P.O. Box 1868 Joplin MO 64802; Dear Mr. Cowen: This is in reply to your letter of May 26, 1983, petitioning for determination that a noncompliance with Standard No. 302 existing in truck sleeper berths that you manufacture is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; We do not believe that Able Body has the legal responsibility to file petition of this nature. Your description of the company as a manufacturer of 'sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks' indicates that Able Body is a supplier of original equipment which is installed in trucks rather than the manufacturer of the truck itself. While Able Body may have a contractual obligation with truck manufacturers to provide them with evidence of compliance with Standard No. 302, the truck manufacturer itself assumes ultimate responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act for compliance with that standard by affixing a label to each truck certifying compliance with all applicable standards. This means that the truck manufacturer has the legal responsibility to notify purchasers and remedy noncompliances in its products involving Standard No. 302, even though the component concerned was produced by another company. As the obligation to notify and remedy rests upon the truck manufacturer, only that party may petition for an inconsequentiality determination.; When noncompliances occur, they must be reported to the agency pursuan to 49 CFR 573 *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*. Under this regulation either a component or a vehicle manufacturer may report a noncompliance to NHTSA if the noncompliance exists only in original equipment of a single vehicle manufacturer. However, if the noncomplying component has been used in the vehicles of more than one manufacturer, the manufacturer of the component and all vehicle manufacturers must file individual noncompliance reports. We have no record that Able Body has filed a Part 573 report on this matter. I enclose a copy of Part 573 for your information.; We would appreciate prompt filing of a Part 573 report by Able Bod and/or relevant truck manufacturer(s). You may advise your customers of their right to file an inconsequentiality petition.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.