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: aiam4982OpenMr. Michael J. Sens Researcher S.E.A., Inc. 7349 Worthington-Galena Road Columbus, OH 43085; Mr. Michael J. Sens Researcher S.E.A. Inc. 7349 Worthington-Galena Road Columbus OH 43085; "Dear Mr. Sens: This responds to your letter to me dated March 26 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 214, Side Door Strength, and 216, Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars,, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ- 7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a 'sport utility vehicle' and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., 1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards. Each safety standard applies to specified 'types' of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a 'sport-utility vehicle,' it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of 33o, departure angle of 25o, breakdown angle of 18o, axle clearance of 7.8', and minimum running clearance of 8.1', and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation. With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it. Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: '. . . C omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard.' You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements. I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0168OpenMr. James H. Lawler, Vice President, Tank Truck Service, 15150 Dequindre, Warren, MI 48091; Mr. James H. Lawler Vice President Tank Truck Service 15150 Dequindre Warren MI 48091; Dear Mr. Lawler: Thank you for your letters dated April 7 and June 3, 1969, in which yo request clarification of the Certification Regulations that become effective with vehicles manufactured after August 31, 1969.; You are correct in your interpretation that the certification would b attached to the door post or the other locations in the cab of a vehicle that are specified in section 367.4(c). You should note, however, that the label is not a 'body certification', as you describe it, but certifies that the entire vehicle conforms to applicable safety standards.; With regard to your suggestion that the label should be placed on th body rather than the chassis of the vehicle, since in the case of your vehicles the body is likely to last longer, it has been determined that uniformity of location is of primary importance for enforcement purposes. The life of various components varies, as you know, from one vehicle to another. These regulations do not cover the situations in which used components are recombined with new ones.; Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Performance Analysis Motor Vehicle safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2155OpenMr. Benjamin C. Throop, Senior Vice President, Administration, Transcon Lines, P.O. Box 92220, Los Angeles, CA 90009; Mr. Benjamin C. Throop Senior Vice President Administration Transcon Lines P.O. Box 92220 Los Angeles CA 90009; Dear Mr. Throop: Thank you for your December 6, 1976, letter in which you detail th difficulties experienced by Transcon Lines with certain antilock devices installed in satisfaction of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. You explain that Transcon disconnected both defective and potentially defective antilock devices, and you ask for an explanation of your legal responsibilities for the disconnections under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1391, *et seq*.).; After the first purchase of the vehicles for purposes other tha resale, the only statutory prohibition against disconnection of safety equipment such as the antilock system is found in S 108(a)(2)(A) which provides:; >>>S108(a)(2) (2)(A) No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard [except for repair]. . . .<<<; A person that does not fall within the enumerated categories is no prohibited from disconnection of the antilock system after purchase. Also, I have spoken to Federal Highway Administration officials who assure me that, because a defective system is involved, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety would not require that the system be connected.; Two National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) staf engineers visited the manufacturer of the antilock systems installed on the tractors and trailers in question to investigate the problems you describe. In replacing the sensors on the trailers, it was discovered that improperly manufactured exciter rings (all produced on August 9, 1976) appear to be the source of the problem. In addition to agreeing to replace all the sensors on the trailers in question, the antilock manufacturer has identified all of the sensors manufactured on the day in question and has initiated a defect recall campaign with the NHTSA. In the case of tractor malfunction, a shuttle valve that has been used for years on trailers appears to be sticking because of excessive corrosion on the particular vehicles in question. It is our understanding that the rate of air loss caused by the sticking can be compensated for by the air compressor and does not pose a safety hazard.; With regard to your concern that the systems 'fail safe,' Standard No 121 specifies that 'electrical failure of any part of the antilock system shall not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes' (S5.5.1). This provision does not require that the system be completely incapable of malfunction, but the manufacturers have made concerted efforts to make the systems 'fail safe.' Quite apart from the requirements of the standard, each of the antilock manufacturers faces the same prospects for product liability suits on its antilock products as in the case of any other of its products.; We will continue to monitor the defect campaign efforts of the antiloc manufacturer to ensure that an unsafe condition does not arise.; Sincerely, John W. Snow, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3314OpenMr. Craig Jones, Mercedes-Benz, One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Craig Jones Mercedes-Benz One Mercedes Drive Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Jones:#This responds to the questions you raised with Stephe Oesch of my office on May 1, 1980, concerning Standard No. 101-80, 'Controls and Displays*.#You asked if the clearance lamp system symbol shown in Table I of the standard can be used on a rotary switch to identify a position that activates only the parking and side marker lights. You also asked whether the low beam symbol can be used to indicate the headlamp position on the same rotary lighting switch. Such a use of the clearance lamp symbol and low beam symbol is permissible.#Under S5.2.1 and footnote 2 to Table I, the switch which controls not only the headlamps, but also the clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps must have the Table I symbol for headlamps and tail lamps either on or adjacent to it. It appears from the drawing you left with us that the required headlamp and tail lamp symbol would indeed be adjacent to the switch. S5.2.1 also provides that a manufacturer may use additional symbols for the purpose of clarity. Since the additional symbols you contemplate using would inform the driver about the particular lights which are operated by the different positions of the switch, they would serve the purpose of added clarity.#If you have any further questions, please let me know.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1329OpenCar Credit Corporation, 7600 Southwestern Ave., Chicago, IL; Car Credit Corporation 7600 Southwestern Ave. Chicago IL; Dear Sirs: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received complaint from Mr. Stanley Pops of South Forest Street, Chicago, Illinois, that a 1967 Chrysler may have been sold to him with an altered odometer and an incomplete odometer disclosure statement.; This agency administers the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act which prohibits the alteration, disconnection, or resetting of odometers and requires a transferor to make a mileage disclosure statement that conforms to Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements. Copies of the law and regulation are enclosed. Under the law, Mr. Pops may have a civil action for damages of $1,500 or more and attorney's fees.; The U.S. Attorney General is authorized to seek injunctive relie against persons who violate the Act. If we receive continued indications of odometer tampering by the Car Credit Corporation, we will ask the U.S. Attorney to investigate the matter and to take appropriate action.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1283OpenMr. Dick Love, President, Cycraft Company, Inc., 111 Monument Circle, Suite 1200, Indianapolis, IN 46204; Mr. Dick Love President Cycraft Company Inc. 111 Monument Circle Suite 1200 Indianapolis IN 46204; Dear Mr. Love: This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1973, concernin Standard No. 218, 'Motorcycle Helmets.' The questions you ask are restated below.; >>>1. 'Is the attachment of the symbol DOT sufficient in itself t certify that the helmet meets the requirements of this act or must the manufacturer have independent supporting data available?'; The DOT symbol, when attached to the helmet, is the manufacturer' certification of the helmet's conformity with the requirements of the standard. Accordingly, because the manufacturer is required to exercise due care that such certification is accurate and true in every material respect, he would have the data necessary to support his certification.; 2. 'Is any form of certification filing required by your Department? I so, is the manufacturer's statement alone sufficient or must independent test data be included?'; No certification filing is required by the Department. 3. 'Will your Department undertake or supervise the independent testin of helmets to verify compliance with the Act? If so, will there be a limit on the age of the helmet used? Will manufacturers be asked to supply the helmet for testing or will your Department secure them from other sources and if so, what sources? Will the regulations apply to helmets manufactured prior to March 1, 1974, but yet unsold as of or after the date?'; 4. 'Will manufacturers, distributors, or dealers holding inventorie which do not meet the requirements of the Act because they were made prior to March 1, 1974, be permitted to sell them, be required to dispose of them, be subject to penalty if they do sell them or exactly what?'; Once any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard becomes effective violations of such regulations are federally enforced. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will purchase motorcycle helmets after the helmet standard becomes effective and test them for compliance. The standard will apply only to helmets manufactured on or after its effective date, it will not apply to helmets manufactured before its effective date but sold to the public after that date.; 5. 'Will pressure sensitive labels applied to the exterior of th helmet meet regulations of S5.6.1, 1 through 6?'; The standard requires that the labeling be 'permanently' affixed to th helmet. This language prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals, or that are in a location where it appears that their removal is expected by the manufacturer.; 6. 'What are the penalties for failure to comply and upon wha determination will the manufacturer be deemed to not be in compliance with the Act?'(sic) What form of notice will be given, what procedures shall take place and what burden of proof will be placed upon the manufacturer?'; Under section 109(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, whoever violates any provision of section 108, or any regulation issued under the Act, including selling nonconforming equipment, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation to a maximum of not more than $400,000 for any related series of such violations.<<<; If the NHTSA determines that a case of noncompliance does exist, the the manufacturer is asked by notice letter to show cause (1) why a civil penalty should not be imposed against him and (2) why he should not correct the noncompliance. Most noncompliance matters are settled at this informal stage. However, if the parties do not agree to a compromise settlement, a formal proceeding under section 113(e) of the Act will be commenced. The manufacturer will be furnished all of the evidence upon which the agency's determination of noncompliance is based. At the 113(e) proceeding the manufacturer will be allowed to present his views regarding the agency's position. The entire record, including the agency's investigation file and the submission of the manufacturer will be forwarded to the agency Administrator for final determinitation (sic). If the Administrator determines that the noncompliance exists, he will direct the manufacturer to issue the defect notifications as required by section 113 and 49 CFR Part 577, and to file a defect report as required by 49 CFR Part 573. In addition, the manufacturer will be directed to pay an appropriate civil penalty.; A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 i enclosed for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2856OpenMr. Alfred Massarone, Chief, Motor Vehicle Safety and Emission Control Division, Department of Transportation, State Office Building, Providence, RI 02903; Mr. Alfred Massarone Chief Motor Vehicle Safety and Emission Control Division Department of Transportation State Office Building Providence RI 02903; Dear Mr. Massarone: I regret the delay in answering your letter. This responds to you questions concerning the recent amendment of Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, that permits the use of rigid plastics in the side windows of buses. Specifically, you ask whether the amendment includes school buses and whether plastic glazing would be allowed in entrance doors and in rear emergency doors of school buses.; Safety Standard No. 205 was amended to permit the use of rigid plasti glazing in all doors and windows of buses, except windshields or in windows to the immediate right or left of the driver (42 FR 61465, December 5, 1977). This amendment is applicable to school buses, since they are a special sub-category of bus.' The plastic glazing would not be allowed in a bus entrance door since this would constitute a window to the immediate right' of the driver. Plastic glazing would be allowed in the rear emergency door, however, since that location was not excepted in the amendment.; Please contact Hugh Oates of this office if you have any furthe questions (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3744OpenMs. Pamela Cox, NADA Management Education, National Automobile Dealers Association, 8400 Westpark Drive, McLean, VA 22102; Ms. Pamela Cox NADA Management Education National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean VA 22102; Dear Ms. Cox: This responds to your request to Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff t verify the record retention checklist your organization plans to distribute to its members. The checklist indicates that automobile dealers must maintain records of 'New and retread tires, name, address of purchaser, tire seller and identification number,' and 'Tires on each vehicle sold.' This is not an accurate description of the recordkeeping requirements imposed on automobile dealers with respect to tire sales.; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 574, *Tir Identification and Recordkeeping*. The tire registration requirements applicable to motor vehicle dealers are set forth in section 574.9. Motor vehicle dealers are *not* required to register the tires on each vehicle sold, they are only required to register tires in two instances. First, if the dealer is selling a new vehicle, the tires must be registered by that dealer only if the vehicle is equipped with tires other than those installed on the vehicle or furnished with it by the vehicle manufacturer. In the far more common situation where the dealer delivers a new vehicle with the original equipment tires installed on or furnished by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle dealer has no registration responsibility for those tires.; Second, if the motor vehicle dealer is selling a used vehicle o leasing a vehicle for more than 60 days, the dealer must register the tires on that vehicle only if he has installed new tires on it. Again, it is more usual for a used vehicle to be equipped with the used tires already on it, and, in that case, the vehicle dealer is not required to register the tires. Moreover, tire registration is not required for any dealer when a vehicle is equipped with retreaded tires, even if the dealer installed the retreaded tires on the vehicle.; Even when motor vehicle dealers are required to register tires, the are only required to record the purchaser's name and address if the dealer's business is owned or controlled by a tire company. I presume this would be a very unusual situation. This agency published an interim final rule establishing voluntary tire registration requirements for 'independent' dealers in the Federal Register of May 19, 1983 (copy enclosed). 'Independent' dealers means those whose business is not owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer. When one of your members is required to register tires and qualifies as an independent dealer, he must simply record the tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold on a registration form provided by the tire manufacturer, together with the dealer's name and address, and give the form to the tire purchaser. It is up to the purchaser to fill in his or her name and address on the form and return it to the manufacturer. The dealer is not required to retain any record of this. Even if the motor vehicle dealer were owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer, that dealer would simply be required to complete the entire registration form and return it to the tire manufacturer, and the tire manufacturer would be required to retain a record of the registration form for three years.; I trust that this information will help you in your efforts to educat your members about their responsibilities under Federal laws. If you need any further assistance in those efforts, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4081OpenMr. Steward Stanley, Junge Baking Company, 3102 Ohio Place, Joplin, MO 64801; Mr. Steward Stanley Junge Baking Company 3102 Ohio Place Joplin MO 64801; Dear Mr. Stanley: This responds to your letter dated November 8, 1985, inquiring whethe Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulation (sic) apply to electric vehicles. They do so apply.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, *et seq*. (the Act). Under the Act, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations for motor vehicles and their equipment. Under section 102(3) of the Act, a motor vehicle means 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' Therefore, since electric vehicles are 'drawn by mechanical power,' they must comply with Federal requirements.; Enclosed are an information sheet for new manufacturers, a form fo ordering copies of safety standards and regulations, and a copy of 49 Part 555. Under Part 555, manufacturers of motor vehicles may apply for a temporary exemption from these safety standards, for a period up to three years, if the exemption would facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle and would not unreasonably degrade the safety of such vehicle. A copy of a report prepared by this agency, 'Applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards to Electric and Hybrid Vehicles,' is also enclosed.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1779OpenMr. Danny J. Lanzdorf, Supervising Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Danny J. Lanzdorf Supervising Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Lanzdorf: This responds to Oshkosh Truck Company's January 9, 1975, questio whether Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, permits the installation of a hand-operated control lever for use in modulating the air in the service brake system in a vehicle which is equipped with a foot-operated service brake control which meets the requirements of the standard.; Standard No. 121 does not include a requirement for a service brak control, and it does not prohibit installation of more than one service brake control. At the same time, several provisions are based on operation of the service brake control(e.t., S5.3.1, S5.7.2.1) and therefore indirectly require a service brake control with certain characteristics. Recently-issued amendments of the emergency brake provisions (effective September 1, 1976) are intended to combine service and emergency brake control in a single service brake control to simplfy (sic) and standardize braking in all new vehicles.; With this in mind, the NHTSA has determined that installation of hand-operated control lever such as you describe does not violate the standard. It may be advisable however, to label this hand-operated lever with a designation other than 'service brake control.' The NHTSA will review this and the other provisions of Standard No. 121 on a continuing basis to determine the advisability f further specifications in the future.; 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.