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: aiam0825OpenMr. Steven M. Sharp, Managing Director, Intercontinental Equipment Corp., 5383 Overland Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123; Mr. Steven M. Sharp Managing Director Intercontinental Equipment Corp. 5383 Overland Avenue San Diego CA 92123; Dear Mr. Sharp: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1972, in which you rais several questions concerning Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. You state that Intercontinental Equipment Corp. (I.E.C.) is the United States importer and distributer of certain vehicles manufactured by Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. in Japan. You also state that I.E.C. has contracted with Yachiyoda Sangyo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo to acquire vehicles from Suzuki, remove non-complying equipment, install approved devices, and affix necessary labels of conformity and arrange for shipment.; The answers to your questions are as follows 1. You ask whether the I.E.C. contract with Yachiyoda changes th status of Suzuki as manufacturer and I.E.C. as importer. It does not change the status with respect to our manufacturer identification and certification regulations.; 2. You inquire as to the classification of Suzuki and Yachiyoda unde Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Since Suzuki manufactures a completed vehicle, Yachiyoda is not considered a manufacturer under NHTSA regulations and is not required by the NHTSA to submit manufacturer identification or certification information.; 3. You ask whether the label of conformity (Label 2) which you propose to have affixed to the vehicles is acceptable. Th NHTSA finds it acceptable.; I enclose copies of Parts 566, 567, and 568 for your information. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2818OpenMr. Frank B. Caristia, Christy Electronics, Inc., 51 East 42nd Street, New York NY 10017; Mr. Frank B. Caristia Christy Electronics Inc. 51 East 42nd Street New York NY 10017; Dear Mr. Caristia: We are forwarding your letter of May 31, 1978 to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Crash Avoidance in Washington D.C. for their review and action.; Sincerely, Irving Rodness, Motor Vehicle Program Specialist |
|
ID: aiam1737OpenMr. Richard FitzMaurice, Senior Engineer, FMC Corporation, 1180 Coleman Avenue, Box 580, Santa Clara, CA 95052; Mr. Richard FitzMaurice Senior Engineer FMC Corporation 1180 Coleman Avenue Box 580 Santa Clara CA 95052; Dear Mr. FitzMaurice: This responds to your December 17, 1974, request for confirmation tha FMC Corporation's air-braked tilt-bed trailer, which has a primary cargo-carrying surface less than 40 inches from the ground, qualifies as a 'Heavy hauler trailer' and, as such, is not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, until September 1, 1976.; 'Heavy hauler trailer' is defined in the standard as follows: >>>'Heavy hauler trailer' means a trailer with one or more of th following characteristics:; (1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension o the vehicle frame, or; (2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carryin surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent 'front- end structure' as that term is used in S 393.106 of this title.<<<; The tilt-bed trailer, which you describe in detail in your November 14 1974, letter, has a bed height of less than 40 inches and therefore qualifies for exemption until September 1, 1976.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4535OpenGlenn L. Duncan, Esq. Thorne, Grodnik & Ransel 228 West High Street Elkhart, IN 46516-3176; Glenn L. Duncan Esq. Thorne Grodnik & Ransel 228 West High Street Elkhart IN 46516-3176; "Dear Mr. Duncan: This responds to your letter concerning situations i which seats tested for compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, bend or deform when subjected to the required test forces specified in the standard. You asked whether NHTSA would consider a seat as passing Standard No. 207 if the seat 'gives,' but does not separate or break free from the floor. I regret the delay in responding. The requirements with which you are concerned are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 207. That section provides in pertinent part: S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces. (a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction, (b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction, * * * * * (d) In its rearmost position--a force that produces a 3,300 inch-pound moment about the seating reference point for each designated seating position that the seat provides, applied to the upper cross-member of the seat back or the upper seat back, in a rearward longitudinal direction for forward-facing seats and in a forward longitudinal direction for rearward-facing seats. The agency answered similar questions in letters dated April 28, 1977 and August 30, 1979 to Mr. Gordon P. Cress and to Mr. Robert Wahls, respectively. (Copies enclosed.) In these letters, the agency stated that NHTSA allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that 'structural integrity of the seats is maintained.' The structural integrity of a seat is determined by the extent to which permanent deformation or separation of seat components and/or seat to floor attachments result from the applied test forces. Examples of possible noncompliances include the following occurring during the application of a forward or rearward load: (a) the seat frame releases from its adjusted position, (b) the seat frame or seat adjusters detach from the test vehicle floorpan, (c) the seat frame detaches from the seat adjuster mechanism, (d) the seat adjuster mechanism separates, or, (e) the hinged seat restraining device disengages, or detaches from the seat frame. Other examples of possible noncompliances are the rear seat back or cushion frame detaching from the test vehicle structure during the application of the specified load, or the folding seat back restraining device releasing from its preset position during application of a forward load. Further, as stated in the two enclosed letters, it has been the longstanding position of the agency that seats which displace to an extent that NHTSA determines occupant safety is threatened would not be in compliance with Standard No. 207. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1367OpenMr. Arthur Gottfried, Manager, Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co., 441 W. 167th Street, New York, NY 10032; Mr. Arthur Gottfried Manager Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co. 441 W. 167th Street New York NY 10032; Dear Mr. Gottfried: This is in reply to your letter dated November 29, 1973, requesting ou comments on your enclosed second-draft customer notification letter, on your second-draft press release, and on your proposed dealer notification letter.; Thank you for your prompt response to our previous suggestions. You present draft conforms to most of the requirements set forth in our Defect Notification regulation (49 CFR Part 577). However, several further changes appear necessary.; First, the second sentence of the fifth paragraph states incorrectl that failure may occur only in rear impact collisions causing loads in excess of eight or nine hundred pounds. Actually, failure is more likely to occur in frontal impacts than in side or rear impacts. Failure may occur whenever the load on the belts exceeds about eight hundred pounds. Such loading can result from impacts from any angle. Frontal impacts are more likely to produce such loads because the principal restraint provided by the belts is against the relative forward motion of the child which the vehicle deceleration of a frontal impact produces. In the case of a rear impact, belt loading results from 'rebound.' Consequently, belt loading at a given rear impact speed will be considerably lower. Side impacts, of course, produce both direct and indirect loading.; Second, paragraph two of your draft does not quite comply with 49 CF sections 577.4(b), 577.5, and 577.6. The first sentence of your second paragraph must read: 'The Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co. has determined that the car seat adapter portion of Stroll-O-Chair Model 71s manufactured before *(date)* does not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213.' Because the wording of the statement is specified precisely, we must insist that it be followed as closely as the particular facts of each case allow.; The second sentence of the paragraph appears to follow sectio 577.4(b)(2). However, such a determination must have some basis other than your initial compliance testing, which we understand to be the only basis for your present statement. In our view, a section 577.4(b)(2) statement would be appropriate only if you had a firm basis for believing that some adapters are materially different from others. Passing results from your own compliance testing are not enough. Otherwise every defect notification letter would contain a section 577.4(b)(2) statement except where the manufacturer violated section 108(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, prohibiting false or misleading certification. Such cases are rare indeed compared to routine compliance test failures such as yours.; Third, the second (last) sentence of paragraph six of your draft may b misleading. We suggest adding the phrase 'manufactured after *(date)*' after 'all model No. 71 car seats' to make it apparent that everyone receiving a defect notification letter has the older rivet system.; Fourth, although the injuries which could occur in the event of adapte failure are many, and are readily apparent, section 577.4(d)(2) requires a general statement of the types of possible injury. One sentence which mentioned impact injuries from contact with the dashboard and other parts of the vehicle interior and which also noted the likelihood of ejection from the vehicle would suffice if placed at the end of paragraph five of your draft.; Fifth, you should probably include a reminder or suggestion that th customer have his small child use adult safety belts during the time he does not have the adapter. Even small children who should ride in approved car seats are better off belted than unbelted. Such a warning could be included in your final paragraph. We consider it a precautionary statement under section 577.4(c)(4).; Finally, section 577.4(e)(1) requires an estimate of the tim reasonably necessary to perform the labor to correct each noncompliance. Because you propose to have each adapter sent to your factory, either directly or through a dealer, it might also be helpful to estimate the total length of time the customer is likely to be without the seat adapter.; We have but two minor suggestions for the press release. First, you initial sentence should specify that the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is 213. Second, you should include the date on which you made your production method change. This is especially important because the designation 'model No. 71' encompasses both complying and noncomplying seats. Our consumer information staff is now drafting our own complementary press release. We will contact you about a joint issuance date.; We have no objection to your distributor notification letter. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4165OpenMr. M. Arisaka, Manager, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Control Department, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. M. Arisaka Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Arisaka: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1986, in which you as whether it is permissible to leave an inoperative center high-mounted stop lamp installed in a vehicle when an operative one is mounted on a spoiler at the rear of the car.; We assume that the new lamp fully complies with the requirements o Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for center high-mounted stop lamps. Our answer is that it is permissible to leave the inoperative lamp in place since its function has been assumed by a conforming lamp. We have no regulations that would either prohibit or require the removal of an inoperative lamp.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3435OpenMr. Larry Louderback, Pupil Transportation, Department of Education, Lansing, MI 48909; Mr. Larry Louderback Pupil Transportation Department of Education Lansing MI 48909; Dear Mr. Louderback: This responds to your March 30, 1981 letter pertaining to the mountin of an old school bus body on a new chassis. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has stated that such a mounting constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle and must comply with all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of that manufacture. This statement comes from previous agency interpretations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and from the rationale underlying the provisions of section 571.7(e) of our regulations. You state that section 571.7(e) applies only to trucks and, accordingly, has no application to school buses.; The agency has had a longstanding position that a vehicle combining a old body and new chassis is a new vehicle. This position was developed and applied long before the proposal for section 571.7(e) in May 1975. See, for example, the enclosed 1972 letter of interpretation and the discussion of pre-proposal interpretations in the enclosed copy of the May 1975 proposal.; The codification in section 571.7(e) of the agency's position a regards trucks did not alter its similar position as regards other vehicle types. I am enclosing a 1978 interpretation stating that school buses will be treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in the same fashion as trucks are under section 571.7(e). The reason for this interpretation is the similarity of the practice of manufacturing school buses and trucks on new truck chassis. Accordingly, the agency has applied the same rationale in determining those vehicles, e.g., buses, that are to be considered newly- manufactured.; In light of these existing interpretations and in the interest o safety, the agency is retaining its position that vehicles using old bodies and new chassis be treated as newly manufactured vehicles.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1408OpenMr. Elmer Rattner, Rebcor, Inc., P.O. Box 156, 3300 Dixie Highway, Fairfield, OH 45014; Mr. Elmer Rattner Rebcor Inc. P.O. Box 156 3300 Dixie Highway Fairfield OH 45014; Dear Mr. Rattner: This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1974, and subsequen telephone conversation with Mr. Feldman of this office asking whether the motorcycle helmets you manufacture may be labeled with the DOT symbol before the March 1, 1974, effective date of Standard 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; The NHTSA's position is that it would be 'false and misleading,' withi the meaning of the statute, for a DOT symbol to appear without qualification on helmets manufactured before the effective date of the standard. We do, however, consider it permissible to have a DOT symbol on the helmet if it is covered by a label, not easily removable, that states in letters at least one-quarter of an inch high:; >>>NO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD APPLIES TO THIS HELMET.<<< Further, since the requirements of the standard only apply to helmet that fit headform size C, manufactured on or after March 1, 1974, and will not apply to helmets that do not fit headform size C until extended to those sizes by a future amendment to the standard, the DOT symbol required for helmets that fit headform size C should not appear on any other helmets until the standard is made effective for those other sizes.; You also asked whether a manufacturer would be allowed to label helmet with a statement to the effect that, although no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a helmet of that size, it meets all Federal performance requirements for helmets of other sizes. We would have no objection to such a statement, provided the manufacturer ensures that it is true.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3065OpenMr. Charles E. Chamberlain, Webster & Chamberlain, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Charles E. Chamberlain Webster & Chamberlain 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Chamberlain: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, concerning th requirements of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, as applicable to vehicles sold to the U.S. Postal Service.; Under the general requirements of paragraph S4.2.2 for trucks an multipurpose passenger vehicles with GVWR's of 10,000 pound or less, Type II seat belt assemblies are required for outboard designated seating positions. That paragraph does provide optional requirements, however, for certain vehicles that are designed to be exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service. Under the optional requirements, these vehicles can instead meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 which allow the use of Type I seat belts at outboard designated seating positions in convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van- type vehicles and for outboard seating positions that do not include the windshield header in the head impact area. Therefore, if the 'X-1' vehicles described in your letter are any of these vehicle types and are sold exclusively to the Postal Service, they may legally be equipped with either Type I or Type II assemblies, at the manufacturer's option.; Regarding your second question, whether or not the 'X-1' vehicle conform to Postal Service specifications is a matter of contractual agreement that must be determined by the contracting parties. The most the agency can say is that the 'X-1' vehicles would be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 208 if they qualify as one of the vehicle types discussed above.; I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1058OpenAlan S. Flink, Esq., 830 Hospital Trust Building, Providence, RI 02903; Alan S. Flink Esq. 830 Hospital Trust Building Providence RI 02903; Dear Mr. Flink: This is in response to your letter of March 7, 1973, concerning th Federal Odometer Disclosure Requirements, 49 CFR Part 580. Our replies to your numbered questions are as follows:; >>>1) The disclosure statement specified by section 408(a) of P.L 92-513 must contain the indicated mileage, regardless of whether the transferor knows the indicated mileage to be wrong. Subsections (1) and (2) of section 408(a) are not stated in the alternative. The statement of mileage specified in (1) is thus required by our regulation to be given upon each transfer. In addition, the statute provides that 'if the odometer reading is *known* to be different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually traveled,' the actual mileage shall be disclosed as unknown. (emphasis supplied) There are numerous commercial situations, such as repossessions, in which the party obtaining possession of the vehicle has had no prior control over the vehicle's operation. In such situations, the repossessing party should not state, upon resale, that the mileage is unknown unless he knows, or has a reasonable belief, that the odometer is wrong.; 2) We have no object to your including a space on the form to indicat mileage beyond the mechanical limits of the odometer.; 3) The phrase 'true mileage unknown' is not obligatory. If th transferor knows the indicated mileage is wrong, he must say so and must state, in substance, that the actual or true mileage is not known. There are only a few ways in which he can convey this thought accurately, but the regulation does not compel him to choose the phrase 'true mileage unknown.'; 4) Our reading of the Rhode Island law leaves us in doubt as to whethe it requires the true mileage to be entered on the form in the event the indicated mileage is wrong. Paragraph (2) of section 31-23.2-6 appears to have the same effect as section 408(a)(2) of P.L. 92-513. A statement of the actual mileage would not be compatible with the statement under Federal law that the true mileage is unknown, but we do not see that a transferor would be required under Rhode Island law to make such an incompatible statement.; 5) No. The State form may be used. 6) The date required is the date of transfer. The date of th disclosure statement will rarely be different, but if it is, the date of transfer should be used on the statement.; 7) Yes. 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.