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: aiam3341OpenMr. H. Miyazawa, Director, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Department, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. H. Miyazawa Director Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This responds to your August 4, 1980, letter asking whether severa vehicle components would be required to comply with Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. In particular you ask whether a headlining lamp, a courtesy lamp installed on a door panel, or various pilot indicator lamps and meters installed in the front panel must comply with the requirements.; As you stated in your letter, Section S4.1 of the Standard lists th components required to comply with the standard. Further, that section states that materials designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants must comply with the standard. Since the components that you mention are not listed in S4.1 and since they do not appear to be designed to absorb energy on contact by an occupant, we conclude that they are not required to comply with the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4484OpenMr. Ernie J. Bunnell Vice President/General Manager Pacific T-Top, Inc. l5241 Transistor Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649; Mr. Ernie J. Bunnell Vice President/General Manager Pacific T-Top Inc. l5241 Transistor Lane Huntington Beach CA 92649; Dear Mr. Bunnell: This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1988 to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have provided diagrams of two types of deck lid spoiler installations, intended as either OEM or aftermarket equipment, and have asked how these relate to requirements for the center highmounted stop lamp. You understand that the spoiler itself does not have to meet the lighting standard, but would like to comply if possible. You are correct that the spoiler itself is not subject to the lighting standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108), however, its installation has the potential for creating a noncompliance with that standard. The basic requirements for the lamp is that it must meet the photometric intensities at each of the test points specified in Figure l0 of the standard, and the visibility (and other) requirements of paragraph S4.l.l.41. Photometric testing is conducted according to SAE Recommended Practice J186a, with the photometer at a distance of at least l0 feet from the lamp. Test points lie above and below the horizontal axis of the lamp, and to the left and right of the vertical axis. According to your first design, the spoiler is 'at or below the rear brake light using the 5 degree measurement as a guide.' You are correct in taking into account the necessity of meeting the 5 degree down test points. But compliance will be affected by the location of the lamp and slope of the deck lid as well as the shape of the spoiler. The second spoiler is designed 'to go over the horizontal intensity of the light.' We interpret this as recognition of the need to meet the test points lying 5 and l0 degrees above the horizontal. Our comments are the same as for the first spoiler. In short, if a spoiler design is not vehicle specific there may be no practicable way for you, as the manufacturer of the spoiler, to determine whether its installation would create a noncompliance. If your design is vehicle specific, the SAE photometric test could be conducted with the spoiler installed. The responsibility for compliance with Standard No. 108 is initially that of the vehicle manufacturer. If the spoiler is installed as part of the vehicle manufacturing process, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards would cover the center lamp with the spoiler in place. But the dealer also must ensure that a certified vehicle remains in conformance at the time it is delivered to its first purchaser. Therefore, a dealer could be reluctant to install a spoiler that is not vehicle specific in the absence of some showing that it does not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Once the vehicle is sold, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in effect forbids the dealer, or any motor vehicle repair business, from modifications that affect compliance of equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. This prohibition, however, does not extend to the vehicle owner, who may modify the vehicle as (s)he wishes, subject to State laws. We are not aware of any State laws that would forbid spoilers of the designs indicated. We have enclosed a copy of paragraph S4.l.l.41 and Figure l0 for your information, and appreciate your interest in learning more about Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam1686OpenMr. Dick Heinrich, Service Manager, Construction Equipment Division, Kyster Company, P. O. Box 289, Kewanee, IL 61443; Mr. Dick Heinrich Service Manager Construction Equipment Division Kyster Company P. O. Box 289 Kewanee IL 61443; Dear Mr. Heinrich: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 74-0165) concerning 79 trailers with Standard Forge brake shoes which may be defective.; The letter which you have sent to the purchasers of the subjec vehicles does not contain the precise language which is required by Part 577 (49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter describes the defect as existing in the brake shoe assemblies. Part 577.4(b) requires, however, that vehicle manufacturers describe the defect as existing in the vehicle itself. The reference in Part 577.4(b) to motor vehicle equipment applies only to equipment campaigns where vehicle (sic) are not involved.; Since in our opinion this discrepancy in your notification letter doe not appear to adversely affect the performance of this campaign, mailing of a revised letter will not be required. A copy of Part 577 is enclosed.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0994OpenMr. Tatsuo Kato, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Tatsuo Kato Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of January 4, 1973, concerning you continuing uncertainties about the intent of sections S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.3 of Standard 210.; In your figure 1, assuming the seat is not adjustable, the contac points would be (b) in the first drawing and (c) in the second. However, a rigid attachment of the length shown in the second drawing would appear to violate the intent of S4.3.1.1 that the angle formed by the webbing in passing from the hardware to the seating reference point should be a forward angle.; In your figure 2, if the bracket can be rotated so that an extension o its centerline would pass through the seating reference point, we would consider point (p) to be the nearest contact point for purposes of S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.3.; With respect to the proposed used (sic) of a flexible wire, as shown i figure 3, the ability of the wire to move with reasonable freedom removes it from the category of rigid hardware. We would consider the points shown as (c) and (f) to be the appropriate contact points for purposes of S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.3.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4611OpenMr. Bob Sandblom President Bookland 8980 E. Indian Bend Road, Suite Dl Scottsdale, AZ 85256; Mr. Bob Sandblom President Bookland 8980 E. Indian Bend Road Suite Dl Scottsdale AZ 85256; Dear Mr. Sandblom: Thank you for your letter of May l8, l989, addresse to the Department, calling our attention to a dealer practice of placing overlays on the center of highmounted stop lamps. We have received a number of inquiries about this subject, and I enclose a representative response. You are correct that it is not legal for a dealer to create a noncompliance, but you will see from the letter enclosed that the practice is not in and of itself illegal provided that the lamp continues to meet the rather technical requirements of the standard after the overlay is required. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety, and for taking the time to write us. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam1413OpenMr. S. A. Spretnjak, Excel Industries, 1003 Industrial Parkway, Elkhart, IN 46514; Mr. S. A. Spretnjak Excel Industries 1003 Industrial Parkway Elkhart IN 46514; Dear Mr. Spretnjak: This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1974, inquiring whethe Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release' (49 CFR 571,217), prohibits the use of sliding windows as emergency exits in buses. You refer to language in S5.3.1 and S5.4 of the standard which refers specifically to the use of push-out windows as emergency exits.; Standard No. 217 is not intended to prohibit the use of sliding window as bus emergency exits, but such windows must comply with all of the standard's requirements for emergency exits.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3584OpenMr. Bernard S. Horton, 100 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02142; Mr. Bernard S. Horton 100 Memorial Drive Cambridge MA 02142; Dear Mr. Horton: This responds to your recent letter regarding the roof crus requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216. You ask why convertibles are excluded from the requirements of the standard, yet the BMW 318 which has a 'targa' roof is not excluded.; Convertibles were excepted from Safety Standard No. 216 when th standard was first issued in 1971 because it was impossible for most convertibles to comply with the requirements. The legislative history of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), which authorizes the issuance of our safety standards, clarifies that Congress did not intend for the safety standards that would be issued to effectively preclude any type of existing motor vehicle. If no exception had been provided, the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216 would have caused the production of convertibles to cease. For this reason alone, they were excepted from the requirements.; The agency has limited the convertible exception to vehicles for whic it is truly impractical to comply. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of 'convertible', the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) by a fixed rigid structural member. Therefore, passenger cars equipped with a 'sun roof', 'hurst hatch roof' or 'targa roof' do not qualify as convertibles because they have a fixed rigid structural member in the described location. This interpretation applies, moreover, whether the rigid structural member joining the 'A' and 'B' pillars is a hidden reinforcing component or whether the structural member is part of the exterior roof panel.; I am sorry that you are unable to obtain the BMW 318, but this i primarily due to the fact that the manufacturer has chosen not to bring this model into compliance with Safety Standard No. 216. As you probably know, there are other models with 'targa roofs' and 'hurst roofs' that are in compliance with the standard and currently in use.; You also mention the fact that many vehicle custom shops cut one o more panels from vehicles to make them into convertibles or 'targas'. You state that there seems to be no prohibition to this. There are certain prohibitions, however. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or part any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard. This means that custom shops cannot cut panels from a used vehicle's roof if such operation would impair the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 216. Failure to observe this prohibition could result in civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note, however, that custom shops are not precluded by this section from totally removing a vehicle roof, thereby converting the vehicle into a convertible. The prohibition does not apply to such a conversion since the vehicle would not have had to comply with Standard No. 216 if it had originally been manufactured as a convertible.; I realize that these various distinctions may be confusing. If you hav any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202- 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4241OpenRichard E. Bond, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Holiday Rambler Corporation, 65528 St. Road 19, Wakarusa, IN 46573; Richard E. Bond Esq. Assistant General Counsel Holiday Rambler Corporation 65528 St. Road 19 Wakarusa IN 46573; Dear Mr. Bond: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of 49 CF Part 565, *Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements*. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; The hypothetical situation discussed in your letter refers to corporation which has manufactured vehicle X for several years. The corporation forms a wholly-owned subsidiary to which it transfers the manufacturing operations of vehicle X. You state that the subsidiary corporation will continue to manufacture vehicle X and ask if the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is authorized to transfer the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code for the corporation to the wholly-owned subsidiary.; In a telephone conversation with Elizabeth Harrison of this office, yo stated that Holiday Rambler is considering transferring the manufacture of commercial cargo trailers to a wholly-owned subsidiary. You also said that the new subsidiary would be responsible for certifying compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and reporting any safety-related defects for these trailers.; Section 4(a) of Part 565 requires the first three characters of vehicle identification number (VIN) to identify uniquely the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. You indicated that less than 500 commercial cargo trailers are produced each year, therefore, the first three characters of the VIN together with the third, fourth and fifth characters of the fourth section of the VIN must uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle. As you know, SAE is authorized by NHTSA to assign manufacturer identifiers.; This agency has not authorized SAE to transfer WMI codes under th circumstances described above. If the WMI code for these trailers, which are now manufactured by Holiday Rambler, were transferred to a new subsidiary, then the WMI would no longer *uniquely* identify the manufacturer. Therefore, your corporation should request the assignment of a new WMI for the subsidiary and not use the WMI assigned to Holiday Rambler for these trailers, if the subsidiary is formed. The new identifier and the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in the VIN must be submitted to this agency under the reporting requirements of section 5 of Part 565.; Please note that the subsidiary must also inform NHTSA under 49 CF Part 566, *Manufacturer Identifier*, of its corporate name and the types of vehicles or vehicle equipment which it will manufacture, and comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566, *Certification*.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1043OpenMr. William J. Bourne, Manager, Transportation Administration, Kraft Foods, 500 Peshtigo Court, Chicago, IL 60690; Mr. William J. Bourne Manager Transportation Administration Kraft Foods 500 Peshtigo Court Chicago IL 60690; Dear Mr. Bourne: This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1973, concerning th Federal Odometer Disclosure Requirements.; With respect to your first question, we confirm your understanding tha a commercial firm trading a vehicle having a gross weight of 16,000 pounds or less is required to give the dealer a disclosure statement.; Your second question concerns the intent of the phrase 'creating security interest,' as used in the definitions of transferee and transferor in section 580.3. The quoted phrase was used to exclude parties to transactions in which liens and similar interests in vehicles are created, but in which the ownership of the vehicle does not change. For example, a bank that lends money for the purchase of a vehicle and that secures its loan by a lien on the vehicle is not a transferee. A dealer who sells a vehicle conveys his ownership and is therefore a transferor, even though he may *also* create a security interest by placing a lien on the vehicle.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5000OpenMr. John Faist DAS Fleet Services Division City of Seattle 8618 2d Avenue, 12th Floor Seattle, WA 98104; Mr. John Faist DAS Fleet Services Division City of Seattle 8618 2d Avenue 12th Floor Seattle WA 98104; "Dear Mr. Faist: This responds to the letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from Chris Kuczynski, Fleet Services Division, City of Seattle Department of Administrative Services, dated February 4, 1992, asking how the provisions of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 pertained to 'a municipal government agency that transfers, modifies and/or fabricates custom vehicle bodies for use by it's own departments.' In a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office on April 3, 1992, you stated that the vehicle modifications referred to in the letter involve only trucks, both light and heavy, that you combine both new and used bodies with both new and used chassis, endeavoring to retain the old engines, power axles, and transmissions to the extent possible, that such modifications include mounting equipment on truck chassis to create such specific-purpose vehicles as dump trucks, cranes, and the like, that some of such modifications and fabrications are done in your own shops while others are contracted out to local body shops, and that passenger cars and buses are not involved. Before addressing the specific issues raised in the letter, some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U. S. Code, 1381 - 1431 (hereinafter 'Safety Act') authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or disapprove motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process which requires each manufacturer, in the exercise of due care, to ensure and certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Thereafter, NHTSA will periodically test vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards and investigate allegations of safety-related defects. Turning now to the modifications to your trucks, we start first with the provisions of 49 CFR, Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, which provides in pertinent part: When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. NHTSA has consistently interpreted that provision to mean that, by its terms, it applies only to new bodies and not to old ones, and that placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axles, as a minimum, are not new and at least two of which were taken from the same vehicle. Conversely, a new vehicle would result by placing a new body on an old chassis utilizing new, a combination of new and used, or used engine, transmission, and drive axles no two of which were taken from the same vehicle. A new vehicle would also result by placing a body, new or used, on a new chassis. In that case the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle which is defined at 49 CFR, Part 568.3 as: A n 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 attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle. By adding a body to the new chassis, you, the City of Seattle, become a final-stage manufacturer, defined in Part 568.3 as '. . . A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.' As such, you are required by Part 568.6(a) to '. . . C omplete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, . . . .' Part 568.6(b) then requires that 'Each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with 567.5 of this chapter.' For your additional information I am enclosing a NHTSA fact sheet entitled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT. To summarize, placing a new body on a used chassis does not make a new vehicle if, as a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axles are not new and if at least two of those components were taken from the same vehicle. A new chassis, however, is an incomplete vehicle and placing a body thereon, whether new or old, results in a new vehicle which must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the new chassis, and the final-stage manufacturer who completes the assembly of the vehicle must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR, Part 567. Accordingly, in response to your question about the applicability of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 to your truck customization program, the answer is that if you create a new vehicle, all those provisions apply. If you do not create a new vehicle, none of them do. This is true whatever procedures/steps you choose to utilize in accomplishing your vehicle customization program. One final matter should be discussed before concluding. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a complying vehicle. That restriction does not apply to private owners, which would include municipalities, who are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the vehicles so modified comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Such restriction would apply, however, to those local body/repair shops to which you contract out some of your customization work. Accordingly, those businesses would have to be very careful to leave intact all the safety devices and features that are on the vehicles that they work on for you. I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry and will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Enclosure Paul Jackson Rice 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.