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: aiam1521OpenRobert Markowitz, Esq., Lieberman, Tratras & Markowitz, Shepherd Law Plaza Building, 1300 Shepherd Drive, Houston, TX 77007; Robert Markowitz Esq. Lieberman Tratras & Markowitz Shepherd Law Plaza Building 1300 Shepherd Drive Houston TX 77007; Dear Mr. Markowitz: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1974, enclosing a check fo $1,000 and a suggested defect notification letter on behalf of your client, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company.; The notification letter you enclose fails to conform in significan respects to 49 CFR Part 577, *Defect Notification*. The regulation presumes the notification will be sent by the manufacturer, as required by statute, and requires statements conforming to sections 577.4(a) and 577.4(b) to comprise the opening and second statements of the notification. We consider the format you have used, that of sending the letter in the name of an attorney for the company, to be inconsistent with this requirement. The first three sentences of the sample letter should thus be stricken. Moreover, section 577.4(b)(1) requires the vehicle or equipment which contain the defect to be identified in the second statement. Trailers are vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and not 'equipment.' We will accept as sufficient identification the year, model number if any, and the words 'utility trailer' in meeting section 577.4(b)(1). The reference to equipment is inappropriate in that it implies that the defect is in the lighting (which is equipment) rather than in the vehicle.; Your letter also fails to evaluate the risk to traffic safety a required by section 577.4(d). In most cases, the potential result of a failure to install required lighting is vehicle crash, and the notification should thus conform to section 577.4(d)(1).; We consider the second and third sentences of your second paragraph an the second sentence of your next to last paragraph ('This notification is intended . . .') to be disclaimers and prohibited by section 577.6. Each should be stricken.; The sample notification letter must be revised as set forth above t conform to Part 577. In addition, the defect report (49 CFR Part 573) is required to be submitted within 5 days of the determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, and not within 5 days of the mailing of notification letters. Your report should thus be submitted forthwith.; We will hold your check until you have submitted a notification lette and defect report in accordance with our requirements. At that time we will deposit the check and inform you that the case is closed.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5562OpenDennis T. Snyder, Esquire 7600 Red Road Suite 200 South Miami, FL 33143; Dennis T. Snyder Esquire 7600 Red Road Suite 200 South Miami FL 33143; "Dear Mr. Snyder: This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995 asking whether a client of yours is a 'final stage manufacturer' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and vehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs. The term 'manufacturer' is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as 'a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . ' (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to 'all manufacturers of motor vehicles,' as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5. The term 'final stage manufacturer' is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as 'a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.' An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in that section as 'an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle.' The term 'completed vehicle' is in turn defined in section 568.3 as 'a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . . .' Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3. Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle 'in such a manner that it conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates,' and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requirements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehicle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion. Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which provides that ' a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so. Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366- 5238. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0760OpenMr. Satoshi Nishibori, Engineering Representative, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Elglewood Cliffs, NJ, 07632; Mr. Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Elglewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 to interior components, enclosing pictures. Your list includes heater case, defroster hose, heater duct hose, heater fan, console box, shell cover, harness, reclining device cover, meter cover, shift lever boot, foot boots, and knobs.; None of the components you list are enumerated in S4.1 of Standard No 302. Consequently, they are not subject to the standard unless they are, as specified in S4.1, 'other interior materials . . . that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5098OpenMr. Wayne Malbon National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc. 1250 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D. C. 20005; Mr. Wayne Malbon National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association Inc. 1250 I Street NW Suite 400 Washington D. C. 20005; Dear Mr. Malbon: This responds to your November 17, 1992 telephon conversation with Walter Myers of this office regarding a shipment of truck tire casings being imported into the United States but held up in customs because the casings do not have the DOT symbols molded onto the sidewalls. You asked for a letter from this office setting forth the requirements for the importation of truck tire casings which do not display the DOT symbol, saying that you would use such a letter to show the U. S. Customs Service (USCS)in order to secure the release of the casings. You will find enclosed a letter from this agency to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA, dated June 18, 1981, in which we explained at length the requirements for importation of truck tire casings and the rationale behind those requirements. The information contained in that letter is still fully applicable, except that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety referred to on page 2 is now the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration. Also, the reference on page 3 to Mr. Harrison Feese of the USCS is no longer valid. Point of contact in USCS is now Mr. Gary Manes, same address, (202) 927-1133, or Mr. Jeff Laxague, same address, (202) 927-0402. I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. Jeff Laxague U.S. Customs Service 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W. Room 4119 Washington, D. C. 20229; |
|
ID: aiam1872OpenMr. Byron Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc 5530 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975 inquiring whethe a State may require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; In your phone conversation of March 28 with Mr. Robert Donin of thi office you indicated that the vehicle in question was an ambulance outfitted with a raised roof designed to enable medical personnel to stand inside. The raised top increases the height of the vehicle to 9 feet. You stated that although you could not identify the specific State statute involved, it was your understanding that Virginia requires clearance lights near the top of all vehicles over 7 feet in height. The law to which you apparently were referring is Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265. A copy is enclosed. It states in part:; >>>(a) All motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers exceeding seve feet in height or in width or the widest portion of which extends four inches beyond the front fender extremes shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand front top corners of such vehicle, each of which lamps shall be capable of projecting an amber light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front of such vehicle, and shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand rear top corners of such vehicle, each of which lights shall be capable of projecting a red light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle,***; (b) In addition to the lamps required herein, each such vehicle shal be equipped with amber reflectors located on the side thereof, at or near the front. Red reflectors shall be used on the rear of each such vehicle. Such reflectors shall be securely fastened to the vehicle not less than twenty-four inches and not more than sixty inches from the ground, provided that in the case of a vehicle which is less than twenty-four inches in height such reflectors shall be securely fastened thereto at the highest point the structure of the vehicle will permit. The reflectors required therein shall be of a type that have been approved by the Superintendent. ***<<<; It is important to note that the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code als provides in S 46.1-267; >>>*** No motor vehicle shall be operated on any highway which is equippe with any lighting device other than lamps required or permitted in this article or required or approved by the Superintendent or required by the Federal Department of Transportation.<<<; As you may know, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect safety standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical. By virtue of this provision, the Federal government is said to 'preempt' the field of regulation with respect to any aspect of performance for which there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.; The key question, therefore, is whether Federal Standard No. 108 an Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265 regulate the same 'aspect of performance.' If so, Virginia may not apply its requirement unless the Federal and Virginia requirements are identical. From a comparison of the two laws, it is evident that both address the same aspect of performance and that they are not identical:; >>>*Both the Federal and Virginia laws apply to ambulances. A ambulance is a multipurpose passenger vehicle, under Federal Standard No. 108 and a 'motor vehicle' under Virginia Code 46.1-265.; *Both laws require that the vehicle be equipped with lights at certai specified locations to facilitate recognition of its dimensions.; *The configuration and color of the lights required by the two law differ.<<<; Consequently Federal Standard No. 108 is preemptive, and to the exten that they differ from the Federal requirements the State clearance lamp and reflector requirements quoted are void. The language of Virginia Code S46.1-267, to the effect that lighting devices may conform to Virginia *or* Federal standards, is incorrect.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5132OpenMs Beverley Silver-Corber 6738 Montgomery St. Vancouver, B.C. V6P 4G4; Ms Beverley Silver-Corber 6738 Montgomery St. Vancouver B.C. V6P 4G4; "Dear Ms Silver-Corber: This is in reply to your letter to the agenc with respect to your wish to import into the United States a l992 Honda Accord, which was not manufactured to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. You would like to use the car for a two-year period in the U.S. while your husband is in graduate school. You have asked whether you qualify for an exemption, and whether you will be allowed to import the car for the two years of study. Under regulations of the Department of Transportation that govern the importation of motor vehicles, you, as a nonresident of the United States, are permitted to import your nonconforming Honda for a period of up to one year, provided that the importation is for your personal use, that you will not sell it during that time, and that the vehicle will be exported not later than the end of one year after entry (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 591.5(d)). The reason for the one-year limitation is that, under the Road Traffic Convention (1952) and the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles (1957), Conventions to which the United States is a party, an imported vehicle may be subjected to all the laws of any country in which it has remained longer than one year, including import duties and taxes. In recognition of the effect of these Conventions, we have adopted a one-year limitation on the temporary importation of nonconforming vehicles by nonresidents, and we do not grant waivers or exemptions from this requirement. However, if you return in the Honda to Canada at the end of the first year of your husband's studies, we would regard the export provisions as having been met, and a new one-year period would begin when the car is re-imported into the U.S. for your husband's second year of studies. Although our regulations do provide for indefinite entry of nonconforming vehicles that are imported for 'research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training' (Section 591.5(j)), we do not interpret this as applying to importers who come to the U.S. to study. Rather, it applies to the importer who wishes to import a vehicle so that it may be studied. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0330OpenDavid A. Phelps, Jr., Group Supervisor, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; David A. Phelps Jr. Group Supervisor Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps: This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 1971, to Mr. Carte concerning section 574.10 of Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping, as it applies to tires on a chassis for which you sell and mount the body.; In cases where the chassis are manufactured and sold with tires by th chassis manufacturer or chassis dealer, it would be permissible for the manufacturer of the chassis to maintain the record of tires on the chassis, and the name of the user of the chassis, and notify the user in the event a defect notification is required.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0625OpenStephen F. Hefner, Esq., Nance, Caston, Hefner and Green, Attorneys at Law, 421 North Crockett Street, Sherman, TX 75090; Stephen F. Hefner Esq. Nance Caston Hefner and Green Attorneys at Law 421 North Crockett Street Sherman TX 75090; Dear Mr. Hefner: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1972, concerning th certification of new trailers which your client manufactures. You state that some of these trailers are shipped (to customers) equipped with used tires that are intended primarily to be used to ship the trailers to their destination, and ask whether these tires should be taken into account in the values for GVWR and GAWR on the certification label.; We do not consider that temporary tires attached to a vehicle fo purposes of shipment should be reflected in the GVWR and GAWR on the certification label, if these tires are not intended to be part of the completed vehicle. consequently, we would expect trailers shipped with such tires to be treated similarly for purposes of certification as vehicles for which no tires have been provided. In such a case, the complete vehicle manufacturer, as indicated in the preamble to the Certification regulations (April 14, 1971, 36 F.R. 2054) must still bear responsibility and certify the vehicle, even though he does not install the tires with which the vehicle will ultimately be equipped. We suggest that one manner in which this could be accomplished by the manufacturer is to list GAWR and GVWR for the optional tire sizes which he recommends in accordance with the amendment to the Certification regulations published December 10, 1971 (35 F.R. 23571). The manufacturer should make it clear to the purchaser of the vehicle that the temporary tires should be replaced when the vehicle is put into use.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2618OpenMr. Gustavo R.. Lima, Vice-President, Algus Enterprises, Inc., P. O. Box 520576, Miami, Florida 33152; Mr. Gustavo R.. Lima Vice-President Algus Enterprises Inc. P. O. Box 520576 Miami Florida 33152; Dear Mr. Lima: This responds to your June 27, 1977, letter asking whether tires tha you export for use on agricultural vehicles are required by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to be labeled with the letters DOT.; The answer to your question is no, unless the tires can also be used o vehicles other than agricultural vehicles. If the tires can be so used, they must be marked with the DOT symbol and meet any Federal requirements applicable to them.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1937OpenMr. John M. Burlake, 1757 Yuba Street, P.O. Box 2073, Redding, CA 96001; Mr. John M. Burlake 1757 Yuba Street P.O. Box 2073 Redding CA 96001; Dear Mr. Burlake: This is in response to your letter of April 3, 1975, requestin information concerning the compliance of the seat belt assembly of a 1972 BMW sedan.; Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required by section 114 of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) to affix permanently to their vehicles a certification label that confirms each vehicle's compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 detail the procedure for satisfying the certification requirement. Manufacturers are not required to furnish the Department with a certification statement.; There are three motor vehicle safety standards that relate to the sea belt assembly. Depending upon the date of manufacture of the BMW in question, it should have been certified as complying with the standards that were in effect at that time.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defect Investigation maintains a log of reported defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, if you wish to ascertain whether or not there have been similar reports of seat belt assembly defects in certain 1972 BMW models, I suggest you write to that office enclosing full information on the nature of the alleged defect and the vehicle model. You may also be interested in obtaining information pursuant to the procedure described in the enclosed Federal Register notice.; 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.