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: aiam4893OpenMr. Gerald Farr, P. Eng. Senior Compliance Engineer Compliance Engineering and Vehicle Testing Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate Transport Canada (ASFAAA) Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1A ON5; Mr. Gerald Farr P. Eng. Senior Compliance Engineer Compliance Engineering and Vehicle Testing Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate Transport Canada (ASFAAA) Ottawa Ontario CANADA K1A ON5; Dear Mr. Farr: This responds to your letter of June 19, 1991 requesting information regarding the method used to calculate the angle specified in section S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210. Your first question asks whether the agency uses a three dimensional protocol or a two dimensional protocol when calculating the angle formed by the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage. NHTSA uses a two dimensional protocol for these purposes. The agency recognizes that, as stated in your letter, this does not take into account the transverse coordinate of these two points. However, the agency does not believe that use of a two dimensional protocol diminishes the safety benefits offered by the safety belt system. Your second question asks whether the agency has made any interpretations of the phrase 'the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware connecting it to the anchorage.' The agency has never made a generally applicable interpretation of this phrase. When manufacturers have requested an interpretation for a specific design, the agency has indicated which point we would consider 'the nearest contact point.' If you have a specific design that concerns you, we can make a similar interpretation if you send us a diagram. It is always a pleasure to hear from representatives of Transport Canada. We believe our cooperation has been mutually beneficial for many years. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4939OpenWilliam E. Kenyon Mr. K's Original Headsaver Patented Restraint Systems 6560 North Scottsdale Road, Suite H103 Scottsdale, AZ 85253; William E. Kenyon Mr. K's Original Headsaver Patented Restraint Systems 6560 North Scottsdale Road Suite H103 Scottsdale AZ 85253; "Dear Mr Kenyon: This responds to your letter regarding a hea restraint system your company is producing for use in pickup trucks with bench seats. You indicated that your company's head restraints meet or exceed the performance requirements specified in Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. As support for this statement, you enclosed with your letter an affadavit, in which you stated that you had tested your company's head restraint in accordance with Standard No. 202 and that the results of the testing showed that your company's head restraint complied with the performance requirements of Standard No. 202. Accordingly, you stated that you would like your company's head restraint system to be 'federally approved as an after-market safety product.' As I will explain in more detail below, this agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. By way of background information, Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR 571.213), which applies to all new passenger cars, and all new trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 202 for your information. The Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) provides: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114... With respect to your company's product, please note that Standard No. 202 applies only to new motor vehicles and requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with the standard. By its own terms, Standard No. 202 does not apply to head restraints as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act does not require manufacturers of head restraints to certify that the head restraint complies with Standard No. 202 before selling the product. Additionally, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to certify or approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment as complying with our standards. In this regard, the process for certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver their products to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the product, the government approves the product for use and assigns it an approval code. In place of this sort of process, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of 'due care' on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. Although we do not have any safety standards that directly apply to your product, there are several provisions of the Safety Act that apply to the sale of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your head restraints are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, the use of aftermarket items could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The effect of this provision is to make it unlawful for any of the named commercial establishments to replace an original equipment head restraint with an aftermarket head restraint if the commercial establishment knows or should know that the switch to the aftermarket head restraint results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 202. Finally, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. This information sheet also explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0429OpenMr. Jay Samoff, Greenbaum, Wolff & Ernst, 437 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022; Mr. Jay Samoff Greenbaum Wolff & Ernst 437 Madison Avenue New York NY 10022; Dear Mr. Samoff: This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1971, requesting a official interpretation of certain provisions of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You ask whether S 573.5 requires quarterly reports to contain information of defect notification campaigns initiated prior to the regulation's effective date, which is now October 1, 1971 (36 F.R. 14742, August 11, 1971). If not, you ask whether an automobile manufacturer must provide any information concerning campaigns begun prior to the regulation's effective date.; The answer to your first question is no. Quarterly reports require pursuant to S 573.5 are not required to contain information regarding notification campaigns initiated before October 1, 1971.; With reference to your second question, manufacturers are required t provide certain information regarding notification campaigns initiated before the regulation's effective date. Section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1402(d)) requires manufacturers to furnish NHTSA a copy of all notices, bulletins, and other communications to dealers or purchasers regarding any defect in a vehicle of (sic) item of equipment sold or serviced by the dealer. In addition, S 573.7 of the Defect Reports regulations requires a copy of certain notices, bulletins, or other communications to be furnished to NHTSA monthly. Both of these requirements apply to notices, bulletins, and other communications regarding defects discovered or determined to be related to motor vehicle safety before as well as after the regulation's effective date. Furthermore, the agency may, should the need arise, request information from manufacturers regarding past campaigns under the authority of section 112(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1401(d)).; If you have further questions please write. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2414OpenHonorable Leonor K. Sullivan, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Leonor K. Sullivan House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mrs. Sullivan: This is in response to your September 20, 1976, letter concernin record keeping with respect to new passenger cars that are damaged prior to retail sale.; I would like to clarify the discussion of record requirements in m September 14, 1976, letter to you. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not require vehicle manufacturers to create records of safety-related repairs that are made to new motor vehicles prior to sale, we do require the *retention* of all such records that are in fact created by the manufacturer. Through such records, the NHTSA can in many cases trace the history of vehicles suspected of containing safety- related defects. We have not to date found a safety need sufficient to justify further requirements specifically regarding identification of the vehicles in question.; A copy of the record retention regulation, 49 CFR Part 576, is enclose for your convenience.; Sincerely, John W. Snow, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam2101OpenMr. Dudley E. DeWitt, Great Dane TRailers, Inc., P.O. Box 67, Savannah, Georgia 31402; Mr. Dudley E. DeWitt Great Dane TRailers Inc. P.O. Box 67 Savannah Georgia 31402; Dear Mr. DeWitt: #Please forgive the delay in responding to your lette of March 19, 1975, requesting clarification of the relationship between the masking requirement and the brake hose assembly performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*. #On August 1, 1975, the NHTSA issued a notice delaying until March 1, 1976, the effective date of the masking requirement, in order to allow time for public comment in its proposed elimination. Copies of this and a more recent notice are enclosed. #If the standard is amended to eliminate the masking requirement, the issues which you have raised will be mooted. Otherwise, these issues will be dealt with in an upcoming Federal Register notice. #Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2551OpenMr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Technical Center, General Motors Corporation, Warren, Michigan 48090; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Technical Center General Motors Corporation Warren Michigan 48090; Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your February 16, 1977, question whether Safet Standard No. 105-75, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, preempts the parking brake requirements specified in New York's school bus brake system regulations.; Safety Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) becomes effective Apri 1, 1977, for school buses and establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems on these vehicles. The standard includes a static test requirement for parking brake systems (grade-holding capability) and a dynamic test requirement for service brake systems (emergency stopping capability). The New York brake system regulations include a static test requirement and also a dynamic test requirement for parking brake systems. You ask whether Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of New York's dynamic test requirement for parking brakes.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.SC. S 1392 (d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.; As noted, Standard No. 105-75 includes requirements for the parkin brake control aspect of braking performance. The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to this aspect of performance in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. It is the agency's opinion, therefore, that Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of the nonidentical aspects of New York's school bus parking brake requirements.; However the second sentence of S 103(d) clarifies that the limitatio on State safety regulations of general applicability does not preempt governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use if such requirements impose a higher standard of performance. Thus, the State of New York may specify these additional parking brake requirements for public school buses. The second sentence of S 103(d) does not permit governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards.A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all aspects of Standard No. 105-75. A school bus manufacturer, therefore, would have to meet the force requirements specified in Standard No. 105-75 for engagement of the parking brake, even for school buses intended for new York's own use.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5294OpenMr. James M. Keitges President Native American Motorcycle Co. P.O. Box 4287 Omaha, NE 68104; Mr. James M. Keitges President Native American Motorcycle Co. P.O. Box 4287 Omaha NE 68104; "Dear Mr. Keitges: This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1994 in which you ask to be provided the statement 'that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations, and standards, then the company has also complied with the State and Local requirements as applicable to NHTSA.' It is not possible to provide you with a statement in this form. We are unaware of any State and local requirements that are literally 'applicable to NHTSA.' However, there may be state and local laws that require compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, issued by NHTSA, in order for vehicles to be sold or registered for use on state and local roads. We believe it likely that this is your concern, and we will take this opportunity to explain the relationship between Federal and State or local requirements. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)), in effect, allows a State or a political subdivision of a State to enact a safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a NHTSA Federal motor vehicle safety standard if it is identical to the NHTSA standard. A State or local standard cannot impose a higher level of performance than a NHTSA standard, except for vehicles procured for use by the State or the political subdivision. Further, a State or a subdivision is specifically permitted to enforce its own identical safety standard. Finally, State or local standards are permitted in areas of performance where there is no NHTSA standard, such as horns and fog lamps. Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each motor vehicle to bear its manufacturer's permanently affixed certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification raises the presumption that the vehicle, in fact, conforms with those standards. If a State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards as a condition of vehicle sale or registration, then the manufacturer's certification should be accepted as fulfilling this State or local requirement. We believe, however, that in spite of the certification, a vehicle could be rejected as not in conformance with Federal requirements within the meaning of State or local law if the nonconformance was manifest on its face (e.g., failure of a new passenger car to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp) in spite of the facts that a State cannot enforce a Federal standard, and that neither the manufacturer nor NHTSA may have made a formal determination of noncompliance. If the State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all State or local requirements as a condition of sale or registration, the manufacturer's certification may be accepted as indicating compliance with all identical State or local requirements if the governing authority so chooses, but obviously the certification could not cover compliance with State or local requirements in areas not covered by the Federal safety standards. We hope that this explanation is useful to you, and will be glad to answer any further questions you may have. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0096OpenHerr A. Hammerstein, Robert Bosch GMBH, 700 Stuttgart 1, Germany; Herr A. Hammerstein Robert Bosch GMBH 700 Stuttgart 1 Germany; >>>Ref: A/B GE 3 Hn/Ra<<< Dear Mr. Hammerstein: The Bureau of Customs has forwarded to us for further reply a copy o your letter to them of May 21 asking whether lighting units for passenger cars, which do not conform to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 108, may be admitted to the United States after January 1, 1969.; Amended Federal standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, specifie lighting requirements for various categories of motor vehicles including passenger cars manufactured on or after that date. It does not specify requirements for individual items of lighting equipment. This means that these individual items, no matter what the date of manufacture, may be imported into the United States after January 1, 1969, because they will have been manufactured on a date when there were no standards in effect applicable to them.; I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations |
|
ID: aiam3710OpenMr. Wayne T. Halbleib, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Supreme Court Building, 101 North Eighth Street, Richmond, VA 23219; Mr. Wayne T. Halbleib Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Supreme Court Building 101 North Eighth Street Richmond VA 23219; Dear Mr. Halbleib: This is in response to your letter of May 25, 1983 in which you aske whether the provisions on the back of Virginia's Certificate of Title are sufficient to satisfy the odometer mileage disclosure requirements contained in 49 CFR Part 580. The provisions are sufficient. Virginia's certificate of Title may therefore be used in lieu of a separate Federal odometer statement.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2802OpenMr. Marsh Pottorff, Potts Motorcycle Company, 717 4th, Pueblo, CO 81001; Mr. Marsh Pottorff Potts Motorcycle Company 717 4th Pueblo CO 81001; Dear Mr. Pottorff: This responds to your February 11, 1978, letter asking whether a devic manufactured by you which is designed to tow motorcycles behind a motor vehicle would be considered a trailer.; The term trailer is defined in Part 571.3 of Volume 49 of the Code o Federal Regulations to mean 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' Since your device falls within the ambit of this definition, it is considered a trailer and must comply with all of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that vehicle type.; 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.