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: aiam2412OpenMr. J. H. Stitt, Frink Sno-Plows, 205 Webb Street, Clayton, NY 13624; Mr. J. H. Stitt Frink Sno-Plows 205 Webb Street Clayton NY 13624; Dear Mr. Stitt: This responds to your September 29, 1976, request to know th responsibilities of a manufacturer of motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1381, *et seq*.). The information you request appears in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and I enclose an information sheet which explains how this material may be obtained. I have also enclosed copies of several of the pertinent regulations.; Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR Part 566), specifie identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment regulated by our standards.; Part 567, *Certification* (49 CFR Part 567), specifies the content an location of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards. After a manufacturer has certified a motor vehicle, persons who alter it, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies (or minor finishing operations such as painting), and persons who change the vehicle's weight ratings, must be able to state that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply. The requirements for such alterers appear at S 567.7 and S 568.8 of NHTSA regulations. An example of a significant alteration is mounting of a snowplow to a certified vehicle.; It is common practice in the truck industry to manufacture vehicles i two or more stages, often by the manufacture of a cab-chassis by a large volume manufacturer, followed by the installation of a body or piece of work-performing equipment by a smaller manufacturer in the locality where the truck is being purchased. To assign responsibilities for the certification of such 'multi-stage' vehicles, the NHTSA has issued Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages* (49 CFR Part 568). The manufacturer of an 'incomplete vehicle' (such as a cab-chassis) must provide documentation to the intermediate and final-stage manufacturer of the vehicle on how to complete it so that it complies with all applicable standards. It is the responsibility of the final- stage manufacturer to affix the certification label discussed earlier, unless the incomplete- or intermediate-stage manufacturer assumes this responsibility.; In some cases, the two- stage process involves mounting a used body o a new chassis or mounting a new body on an old chassis. It is only when a new chassis is involved that the NHTSA considers the operation to be the manufacture of a new vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3653OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1982, to Mr. Vinson o this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new option for school buses permitted by Wisconsin. This option would allow two additional red lamps, front and rear, as a supplement to the red warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4(a) of the standard.; As a general rule, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No 108 as long as it does not 'impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment' required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). In our opinion, the separate lamps that would be permitted by Wisconsin on the front of the school bus, between the bottom of the windshield and the top of the highest headlamp, would not impair the effectiveness of the front lighting equipment. The lamps on the rear, however, according to Wisconsin, could be incorporated 'in an existing lamp' provided that such incorporation 'shall not interfere with or override the existing unit's function.' We believe that the language both of Standard No. 108 and the Wisconsin specification would effectively prohibit incorporation of the warning lamp into the stop lamp of the school bus. However, we believe that this language would allow its combination with the tail lamp, or its addition as a separate lamp.; We trust that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4196OpenMr. Davis Thekkanath, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, 2307 Oregon St., Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements* requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, *Certification*, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2941OpenMr. Ben Bagby, Illinois Department of Administrative Services, 716 Stratton Office Building, Springfield, IL 62706; Mr. Ben Bagby Illinois Department of Administrative Services 716 Stratton Office Building Springfield IL 62706; Dear Mr. Bagby: This is in response to your letter of November 28, 1978, requesting ou interpretation of the Federal odometer law. Your questions and answers are as follows:; 1. Is the State of Illinois required to furnish odometer disclosur statements to purchasers of used vehicles which are sold by the State at public auction? Yes. For purposes of the Federal odometer law, it is irrelevant where or how vehicles are sold. The State is the transferor of the vehicles and as such is required under 49 CFR Part 580 to provide every transferee with an odometer disclosure statement.; 2. If the Federal government donates to the State surplus vehicles, i the Federal government required to provide odometer information to the State? Is the State required to furnish odometer information to other governmental units and not-for-profit institutions to whom it sells these vehicles? The answer to both questions is yes. The Federal government has incorporated the odometer disclosure statement onto Standard Form 97, which is the form which officially transfers a vehicle and evidences its release from the custody of the Federal government. In some instances a separate form is used and is attached to Standard Form 97.; Part 580.3 of Title 49 defines 'transferor' as 'any person wh transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest.' Therefore, it is irrelevant that the vehicles were donated by the Federal government rather than sold. The State as the new owner must, likewise, provide the purchaser with a disclosure statement.; If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1394OpenMr. John P. Moorehead, Vice-President of Engineering, Research & Development, Open Road Industries, Inc., 2601 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278; Mr. John P. Moorehead Vice-President of Engineering Research & Development Open Road Industries Inc. 2601 Manhattan Beach Boulevard Redondo Beach CA 90278; Dear Mr. Moorehead: We have received correspondence from Mr. & Mrs. William D. Waterhous of Homestead, Florida, concerning the recall campaign in which their 1970 Open Road motor home is involved (NHTSA campaign No. 73-0043). Mr. and Mrs. Waterhouse object to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision which you have required them to agree to in order for your company to repair their vehicle without charge to them. That provision reads,; >>>The undersigned will save and hold Open Road Industries, Inc harmless from and indemnify it against any and all claims, actions, causes of action and damages it may suffer or sustain by reason of making said repair and alteration.<<<; Our records indicate that the recall in question was initiated on Marc 12, 1972. Accordingly, regulations applicable to the owner notification letter (49 CFR Part 577) do not apply, as these regulations first became effective March 26, 1973.; We wish to inform you, however, in the event Open Road Industries find it necessary to conduct notification campaigns in the future, that we would not consider a notification letter such as this to conform to Part 577. We believe the hold harmless and indemnity provision is a charge to the purchaser beyond what is standard business practice in these matters. While no money is demanded, the legal rights which your company demands be relinquished are not without monetary value, and may, as in the case of the Waterhouses, influence the purchaser's decision as to whether the manufacturer should be entrusted to make the repair. While this agency has no authority to compel manufacturers to repair defective vehicles, or to prevent manufacturers from making repairs subject to conditions, it does require through Part 577 that specific information regarding defective vehicles be provided to purchasers. That information is required to be more extensive when the manufacturer does not perform the repair free of charge to the purchaser. Consequently, future notification letters sent by Open Road which include these or similar hold- harmless or indeminity (sic) provisions must specify the measures to be taken to repair the defect in accordance with S 577.4(e)(3), which deals with those cases where the manufacturer does not bear the cost of repair.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3203OpenMr. Walter S. Felton, Jr., Hugh A. West, Inc., Suite 303 Professional Building, Suffolk, Virginia 23434; Mr. Walter S. Felton Jr. Hugh A. West Inc. Suite 303 Professional Building Suffolk Virginia 23434; Dear Mr. Felton: This is in response to your letter of October 22, 1979, addressed t Mr. Nelson Erickson. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of our letter. Your letter asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, *Theft Protection*, was intended to prevent a small child or animal left unattended in a parked automobile (model year 1973) from which the keys have been removed, from intentionally or accidentally moving the gear selection level from the 'Park' position. The answer to your question is no, for the reasons noted below. You also requested a copy of any technical analysis that may have been done in the development of Safety Standard 114. Although the public docket contains analyses pertinent to later versions of Safety Standard 114 it contains none pertinent to any version of the standard applicable to passenger cars manufactured in 1973. The only analyses pertinent to these earlier versions of the standard are contained in documents which contain internal agency opinion and recommendations and thus are not publicly available.; When Safety Standard 114 was adopted in 1968 its stated purpose was t 'reduce the incidence of accidents resulting from unauthorized use.' (33 FR 6471, April 27, 1968). This goal was based on evidence which shoed that: 'cars operated by unauthorized persons are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury and death than those which are driven by authorized individuals,' (33 FR 6471, preamble). Neither the rule nor the preamble states that the standard was intended to accomplish any other goal.; As adopted, the standard required that all passenger cars manufacture on or after January 1, 1970, be equipped with a key locking system that (upon removal of the key) would prevent 'activation of the car's engine or other main source of motive power, and either steering or self-mobility or both.' Safety Standard 114 in its current form also provides manufacturers with this option. The preamble to the standard simply stated that a steering or self-mobility lock was needed in order '...to defeat car thieves who start cars with so-called 'master keys' and devices which bypass the [ignition] lock ...' (33 FR 6471).; In light of the compliance option described above and the purpose o Safety Standard 114 as expressed both in the standard its self and in the preambles of various Federal Register notices, it appears that Safety Standard 114 was not intended to apply to the situation described in your letter.; If you have any further questions, please fell free to contact Ms Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4529OpenAIR MAIL; AIR MAIL; Mr. Mamoru Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Homologation Sect Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, JAPAN Dear Mr. Arisaka: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1988, with respect to a motorcycle lighting device called the 'rolling headlamp.' The headlamp is designed to have its vertical plane always perpendicular to the ground regardless of the inclination of the motorcycle. You have asked whether such a device is legally permissible. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not prohibit alteration of the mounting angle of a headlamp. Although paragraph S4.3.1 requires each lamp to 'be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle,' your lamp appears to be 'securely mounted' even if it is able to rotate. I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3716OpenMr. Binichi Doi, NSK Representative Office, 5400 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104; Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office 5400 S. State Street Ann Arbor MI 48104; Dear Mr. Doi: This responds to your letter asking whether a continuous loop seat bel system with a tension reliever ('window-shade device') on the upper torso section of the belt must have a one-way locking tongue.; Continuous seat belt systems are permissible under Safety Standard No 208 if certain conditions are met. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of Type 2 belts 'by means of an emergency locking or automatic-locking retractor' and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion 'by means of an emergency-locking retractor.' The language permits single retractor, continuous loop systems if the single retractor does 'automatically adjust' the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the danger of submarining due to a slack lap belt, the agency has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.; First, to conform to the requirements, the buckle of the assembly mus be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjusting. This means that when the belt is buckled by the vehicle occupant, the retractor must be capable of cinching the lap belt tightly around the occupant's pelvic area (regardless of where the buckle tongue is located along the belt webbing when the belt is fastened). The friction in the buckle tongue cannot be so high that the occupant must manually pull the belt webbing through the tongue to tighten the lap belt. Based on our viewing of your proposed belt system (presented by your representative in a May 25th meeting), it is our opinion that your system does not have a sufficiently low level of friction that it would automatically adjust the lap belt portion. It is impossible for us to judge how this system would perform when installed in a vehicle, however, since the angle of the buckle tongue at the time of fastening does affect its friction level. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether or not its belt design complies with the standard. The agency does not offer advance approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. Further, the agency does not make determinations of compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment prior to the manufacturer's certification of that vehicle or equipment.; The second restriction in regard to continuous loop systems concern the use of manual and automatic tension relieving devices on the upper torso portion of the continuous loop. In past letters of interpretation, the agency has limited the use of tension relieving devices to the upper torso section of seat belts that have an individually adjustable lap belt. A system does not have an individually adjustable lap belt if slack which is introduced into the continuous loop by a 'window shade' device or 'comfort clip' is directly transferred to the lap belt. Thus, in answer to your specific question, yes, a continuous loop seat belt system with a tension reliever on the upper torso portion of the belt should have a one-way locking tongue or some other method of preventing slack from returning to the lap belt. The high friction in the buckle tongue of your belt design would likely prevent the return of belt slack to the lap belt. However, as pointed out above, this high friction would also likely prevent the lap belt from adjusting automatically. Granted, these are somewhat conflicting concerns and they do present a tremendous design challenge. However, the agency believes these are necessary requirements if manufacturers include tension-relieving devices in their continuous loop systems.; I hope this clarification will be of help to you in your design plans. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2804OpenMr. James Tydings, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 1408 Courtesy Road, P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. James Tydings Thomas Built Buses Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your March 10, 1978, letter asking whether you ca consider a 39-inch bench-type seat in a bus as a two passenger seat when the bus is designed for adult transportation. You state in your letter that it would be possible for three 5th percentile females to sit in a seat of that width.; The establishment of designated seating positions in buses and othe vehicles is done by the manufacturer of the vehicles. A manufacturer is accorded some discretion in making this determination, however, he is subject to certain limitations. For example, a manufacturer cannot understate the designated seating positions to such an extent that the vehicle is likely to carry more people than its stated capacity. In other words a manufacturer must make a good faith determination of the number of designated seating positions in its vehicles. Applying this test to a 39-inch bench seat used in buses transporting adults, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not consider it erroneous to consider these seats as two-passenger seats, because it would be extremely uncomfortable if not impossible to seat 3 adults in those seats.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0839OpenMr. Robert Barnett, Dallas Sales, Gardner-Denver Company, P.O. Box 26346, Dallas, TX 75226; Mr. Robert Barnett Dallas Sales Gardner-Denver Company P.O. Box 26346 Dallas TX 75226; Dear Mr. Barnett: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1972, to our Regiona Office in Fort Worth, Texas, that has been referred to me, in which you request information concerning intermediate and final stage manufacturers.; I am enclosing, among other things, a copy of Part 568 of Title 49 o the Code of Federal Regulations that specifies the responsibilities of intermediate and final stage manufacturers. The final stage manufacturer applies the 'Gross Axle Weight Rating' to the certification label in accordance with paragraph 567.5 of the Certification Regulation, a copy of Part 567 is also enclosed. The Preamble to Part 568 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, states '. . .By its definition a completed vehicle is one that requires no further manufacturing operations in order to perform its intended function, other than the attachment of readily attachable components and minor finishing operations. . . .'; 'In the event that a 'readily attachable component' is a componen regulated by the standard, such as a mirror or a tire, the final-stage manufacturer must assume responsibility and certify the vehicle even though he does not install the particular component. . . .' Persons who change tires, that are furnished by the final-stage manufacturer, prior to delivery to the user are not responsible for certification. However, he should assure himself that the tires he installs are compatible with the weight ratings on the certification label affixed by the final-stage manufacturer.; Final-stage manufacturers can rely on the documentation supplied by th incomplete and/or the intermediate vehicle manufacturer in establishing his weight ratings as long as he has no reason to believe it is false or does nothing in his operation that would change the ratings. Good business practices would dictate that a manufacturer would retain information supplied by other manufacturers that he uses as a basis for his certification.; If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
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.