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: aiam1055OpenMr. Elmer A. Brown, Registrar, Department of Motor Vehicles, P.O. Box 1319, Sacramento, CA 95806; Mr. Elmer A. Brown Registrar Department of Motor Vehicles P.O. Box 1319 Sacramento CA 95806; Dear Mr. Brown: This is in response to your letter of March 12, 1973, concerning th compliance of a proposed California form with the Federal Odometer Disclosure Requirements, 49 CFR Part 580.; The use of a combination form such as that proposed is acceptable s long as it contains the information required in Part 580. We have reviewed the proposed form and find that it complies with Part 580.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3592OpenMr. Masakatsu Kano, Executive Vice President, MMC Services Inc., 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Kano: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1982, concerning th application of Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*, to a passenger 'assist grip' provided in your vehicles. You asked whether the instrument panel impact test of the standard must be conducted both with and without the passenger grip mounted on the instrument panel.; The head impact test should be conducted with the passenger 'assis grip' mounted in place. It should not be necessary to test the panel with the grip removed. Section 5.3.1 of the Standard provides that if an area of the instrument panel is within the head impact zone, it must meet the performance requirements of the standard. In using the term 'instrument panel', the agency intended to include the basic panel and any integral design features of the panel. Your engineering drawing shows that the grip is solidly mounted on top of the panel as an integral part. You state that the grip is a standard design feature on all the vehicles you intend to manufacture. Because the grip is a standard design feature which is securely affixed to the instrument panel, the agency considers it an integral part of the panel. Thus, the performance requirements of the standard would be applicable with the grip mounted in place.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4257OpenMr. T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Control Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1986, with reference t the distance between a front turn signal lamp and a lower beam headlamp.; In brief, SAE Standard J588e, incorporated by reference in Standard No 108 requires a minimum separation distance of 4 inches between the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lower beam headlamp. You have pointed out that a replaceable bulb headlamp does not have a retaining ring, and you have presented two possible substitutes as a measuring point. The first (your Item A) is the outer edge of the headlamp, and the second (your Item B) is the end of the effective area of the reflector. You believe that Item B is the more appropriate.; We concur with your interpretation. Of the two options, the distance t the edge of the effective area of the reflector is the one most similar to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lower beam headlamp. The basis for this interpretation is the assumption that the headlamp lens between the outer edge of the headlamp and the edge of the effective area of the reflector is not used for production of the lamp's beam, has no significant luminance, and therefore will not mask the turn signal.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3438OpenMr. R. W. Cheetham, Director of Quality Assurance, The Armstrong Rubber Company, 500 Sargent Drive, New Haven, CT 06507; Mr. R. W. Cheetham Director of Quality Assurance The Armstrong Rubber Company 500 Sargent Drive New Haven CT 06507; Dear Mr. Cheetham: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of th labeling requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically you asked if the requirements of section S6.5(f), requiring the tire label to show the actual number of plies, and the composition of the ply cord material would be satisfied by the Marking:; >>>'Tread - 2 plies Polyester + 2 Aramid Woven Belts Sidewall - 2 plies Polyester.' <<< It has been a longstanding policy of this agency not to issue advanc approval of labeling information. However, we will state that marking appears to satisfy the requirements of section S6.5(f) if it is slightly modified. Specifically, the reference to 'belts' should be deleted, and the word 'plies' should be substituted.; The purpose of the marking requirements in Standard No. 119 is t ensure that the user of the tire is provided with technical information in a straightforward manner. This information is necessary for the safe use of the tire. Section S6.5(f) of the Standard requires that the marking include only the actual number of *plies* and the composition of the *ply* cord material. To satisfy this requirement, the information for the tread should appear as: 'Tread - 2 plies Polyester + 2 plies Woven Aramid.'; Your desire to represent the ply cords as belts probably represents marketing effort by Armstrong to convince purchasers to buy this particular tire. This agency has no reason to believe that these tires are not outstanding performance tires or to reduce your marketing efforts. However, it is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required markings on the sidewall of the tires.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1405OpenJames B. Steward, Esq., Bridges and Collins, Bridges Building, 701 Teal Lake Avenue, Negaunee, MI 49866; James B. Steward Esq. Bridges and Collins Bridges Building 701 Teal Lake Avenue Negaunee MI 49866; Dear Mr. Steward: In reply to your request of January 30, 1974, I am enclosing a copy o the regulation issued to implement the odometer disclosure requirements of Public Law 92.513.; Although there are a variety of ways to determine whether a vehicle' actual mileage is greater than shown on the odometer, I know of only one method to establish the exact amount by which the indicated mileage has been exceeded: the testimony of a witness who knew the exact mileage on the car at the time the odometer was changed and who knows the accuracy of the odometer's performance after the change.; I would be most interested to learn of the progress of your action. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4607OpenM. Iwase, General Manager Technical Information Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan; M. Iwase General Manager Technical Information Dept. Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-shi Shizuoka-ken Japan; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of March 20, l989 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 as it applies to the location of the license plate lamp on motor vehicles. You noted the language in Tables II and IV of Standard No. l08 specifying that the lamp is to be located 'at rear license plate, to illuminate the plate from the top or sides,' for vehicles other than motorcycles. The requirement for motorcycles (Table IV) is simply that it be located 'at rear license plate.' You have asked for confirmation that, except on motorcycles, the license plate lamp shall not illuminate the plate from the bottom. Your interpretation is correct. The rationale for the requirement is that in a location other than at the bottom, the license plate lamp is less likely to be obstructed by snow or mud. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /; |
|
ID: aiam4312OpenMr. Robert R. Shapro, Vice President, Transportation Specialist, Inc., 512 Cave Road, Nashville, TN 37210; Mr. Robert R. Shapro Vice President Transportation Specialist Inc. 512 Cave Road Nashville TN 37210; Dear Mr. Shapro: This list responds to your request for 'the fact sheet concernin certification as required' by 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. You describe your company as a 'multistage manufacturer,' and ask how your company can become certified 'to manufacture or alter vehicles in accordance with the code of Federal regulation.' I regret the delay in responding to your request.; First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.; As you request, I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification* and Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. Also, for your information, I enclose an information sheet that may be of interest to you if you are new to motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacture.; Please note that there is no requirement that a company be 'certified before it can manufacture or alter vehicles. 49 CFR Part 566 does require that if a company begins to manufacture motor vehicles subject to any of the Federal safety standards, it must submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture.; I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1110OpenMr. William Eriksen, Anderson-Alford, Seventh at D Streets, P.O. Box AA, Eureka, CA; Mr. William Eriksen Anderson-Alford Seventh at D Streets P.O. Box AA Eureka CA; Dear Mr. Eriksen: This is in reply to your letter of April 3, 1973, inquiring whethe there are licenses and forms that you must obtain before you may install old truck bodies on new trucks.; Persons who install used truck bodies on new trucks are generall considered to be 'final-stage manufacturers' under NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR 567, 568). These regulations require final-stage manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles to certify the conformity of such vehicles to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Certification is accomplished by affixing a label to the vehicle. The requirements for both the location and content of the label are contained in the Certification regulations, and you may obtain copies of these regulations as indicated on the enclosed, 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations'.; There are no licensing requirements, nor specified forms you mus complete before you undertake these manufacturing operations. However, the NHTSA does have requirements, (Part 566, 'Manufacturer Identification', copy enclosed) that require you to submit certain information regarding your company within 30 days after commencing manufacture.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4742OpenJoseph R. Wheeler, Esq. P.O. Box 2808 424 Church St., Suite 2900 Third National Financial Center Nashville, TN 37219; Joseph R. Wheeler Esq. P.O. Box 2808 424 Church St. Suite 2900 Third National Financial Center Nashville TN 37219; "Dear Mr. Wheeler: This is in response to your letter to Kennet Weinstein of my staff requesting information about actions by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). More specifically, you noted that S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 states that, 'Except as provided in S4.1.5 and another section not relevant to your inquiry , each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the automatic restraint requirements .' S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: 'If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect .' You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no. Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars. This letter expresses no opinion about the implications under Tennessee law of the absence of a determination by the Secretary of Transportation regarding any State's safety belt law. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3087OpenMr. Ron Bechtel, Halliburton Services, Drawer 1431, Ducan, Oklahoma 73533; Mr. Ron Bechtel Halliburton Services Drawer 1431 Ducan Oklahoma 73533; Dear Mr. Bechtel: This is in response to your letter of May 1, 1979, requesting a interpretation of the definition of 'incomplete vehicle' contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and in confirmation of your subsequent telephone conversations with Mr. Schwartz of my office.; The term 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in S3 of the standard to mea 'an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attached components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed trailer.; You are correct in saying that most of the components listed in th definition are not meant to be part of a trailer. Consequently, an incomplete Trailer would consist of only those components, such as a frame, listed in the definition which are meant to be part of the completed trailer. The outfitting of an incomplete trailer for a specific purpose would not be sufficient to make Halliburton Serviced responsible for assigning the vehicle identification number.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.