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 |
|---|---|
ID: aiam2650OpenMr. David Sapp, Assistant General Counsel, Texas Automobile Dealers Association, 1108 Lavaca, P.O. Box 1028, Austin, TX 78767; Mr. David Sapp Assistant General Counsel Texas Automobile Dealers Association 1108 Lavaca P.O. Box 1028 Austin TX 78767; Dear Mr. Sapp: This responds to your August 4, 1977, letter asking whether a deale who assembles a 'kit-car' on a chassis would be considered a manufacturer of a motor vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal safety standards.; Manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381) as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment....' Therefore, a dealer who assembles 'kit-cars' would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of the Act since he is assembling motor vehicles. However, if the chassis on which the kit-car is assembled is from another used vehicle, the completed kit-car vehicle would be considered used and its assembler would not be considered a manufacturer under the Act.; The Act prohibits the manufacture for sale or introduction int interstate commerce of any new motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, if the vehicle the dealer assembles is going to be used as a means of transportation on the road, it must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. The mere use of a vehicle on public highways constitutes an introduction into interstate commerce and is prohibited unless compliance with the safety standards has been achieved.; Part 567.4(g)(1)(ii) of the certification regulations provides th producer of the kit with an option as to whether or not he certifies that the vehicle will comply with all applicable safety standards if completed according to his instructions. If the producer of the kit takes the responsibility of certifying the completed vehicle, the assembler of the vehicle must exercise reasonable care in following the instructions he provides.; For your information I have enclosed a sheet entitled 'Where to Obtai Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' which will direct you to the proper source for obtaining a copy of the safety standards and regulations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3942OpenJohn D. Dusenbury, Esq., VP/Chief Counsel, United States Fleet Leasing, Inc., P.O. Box 5933, San Mateo, CA 94403; John D. Dusenbury Esq. VP/Chief Counsel United States Fleet Leasing Inc. P.O. Box 5933 San Mateo CA 94403; Dear Mr. Dusenbury: Thank you for your kind words in your letter of April 12, 1985. It i always gratifying to know that our efforts are appreciated.; *The Original Peck's Title Book* was recently revised. I have reviewe these revisions and it has become necessary to supplement the list set forth in my letter of April 9, 1985. The title documents of the following states may also be used in lieu of a separate odometer disclosure form if the purchaser completes all information concerning the application for title:; >>>Delaware, Maryland, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Wyoming<<< Unless the application is completed, the title will not include th buyer's signature.; I remind you that if I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate t contact me.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0397OpenKendall M. Barnes, Esq., General Counsel, Department of the Army, Headquarters United States Army Material Command, Washington, DC 20315; Kendall M. Barnes Esq. General Counsel Department of the Army Headquarters United States Army Material Command Washington DC 20315; Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in reply to your letter of June 29 with its enclosures from th Staff Judge Advocate, Aberdeen Proving Ground. The Judge Advocate requests an 'interpretation of the applicability of the military exception to recent motor vehicle brake fluid legislation,' stating his specific interest in 'the use of MIL-P-46046' brake fluid.; We are unaware of any 'legislation' that affects the manufacture an use of MIL-P- 46046 brake fluid. The NHTSA issued an amended brake fluid standard on June 24 but this does not affect the exception provided in 49 CFR S 571.7(c) that 'No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with the contractual specifications.' Thus continued use of MIL-P-46046 brake fluid by military personnel appears permissible as far as this agency is concerned.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0682OpenMr. Thomas Templin, Truck Cap Division of Temptation Mfg. Co., 290 Cass Avenue, Mount Clemens, MI 48043; Mr. Thomas Templin Truck Cap Division of Temptation Mfg. Co. 290 Cass Avenue Mount Clemens MI 48043; Dear Mr. Templin: This is in response to your undated letter, which we received on Marc 22, 1972, in which you ask what NHTSA requirements are applicable to a truck cover you manufacture, enclosing a picture.; The picture appears to show a cover designed for installation over th back of a pickup truck. If this unit is not designed to carry persons when the truck is in motion, there are no requirements applicable to it. If, however, it is designed to transport persons, the glazing materials (glass and plastics) used in it must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials,' (copy enclosed). In addition, the unit must also be certified as conforming to the standard in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the enclosed NHTSA notice of November 4, 1967.; The ASA Test Z26.1-1966 that is incorporated into Standard No. 205 ca be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1990OpenMr. Manuel M. Ellenbogen, Supervisor, Export Sales & Licensing, International-Automotive, The Budd Company, 2450 Hunting Park Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19132; Mr. Manuel M. Ellenbogen Supervisor Export Sales & Licensing International-Automotive The Budd Company 2450 Hunting Park Avenue Philadelphia PA 19132; Dear Mr. Ellenbogen: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1975, asking whic standards might be affected by the mounting of a tail lamp in the elastic skin of a bumper.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection* prescribes barrier and pendulum impact tests to which vehicles must be subjected without incurring certain types of damage. Included in the list of safety systems that must remain undamaged are lamps and reflective devices. S5.3.1 of Standard 215 states that each lamp or reflective device, except license plate lamps, must remain free of cracks and comply with the applicable visibility requirements of S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; The manufacturer should be aware that placement of a tail lamp in th elastic skin of a bumper might expose it to damage during Standard 215 compliance testing.; For your information, I have enclosed copies of the current Standar No. 215, the proposed Part 580 bumper damageability standard, and Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2345OpenJames H. Gross, Esq., Messrs. Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, 1701 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; James H. Gross Esq. Messrs. Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease 1701 K Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Gross: This is in response to your letter of June 15, 1976, concerning 49 CF Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*.; As we understand the situation, Geo. Byers Sons, Inc., ('Byers') ha imported 988 motorcycles whose tires were manufactured by VEB REIFENKONBINAT ('VEB'), a corporation in the German Democratic Republic. VEB has to date failed to apply for a manufacturer's designation and to mark the tires supplied with the motorcycles in accordance with Part 574. Consequently, Byers wishes to apply for an identification mark on behalf of the manufacturer and itself carry out Part 574 marking requirements.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 defines manufacturer to include a person importing motor vehicles for resale. As a statutory manufacturer, the importer of record could become responsible for insuring compliance with Part 574. We understand that the importer of record is East-Europe Export, Inc., but that there is a serious question of East-Europe's continuation as a corporation and, consequently, the ability of the NHTSA to require East-Europe to satisfy the requirements of Part 574. Therefore, although not expressly permitted by the regulation, we would not object in this instance to Byers, as the distributor of the motorcycles, applying in its own name for a manufacturer's tire identification mark (so long as it is willing to accept the responsibility for carrying out the requirements of Part 574). Because of the recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, we would not permit Byers to apply for an identification mark, on behalf of VEB itself, without showing that VEB intended to fulfill the requirements of Part 574.; In any event, VEB must submit a designation of an agent for service o process as required by Section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR 551.45.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5480OpenDr. Dimitrios Kallieris Associate Professor and Division Chief Experimental and Forensic Biomechanics Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg Vossstrasse 2 69115 Heidelberg, Germany; Dr. Dimitrios Kallieris Associate Professor and Division Chief Experimental and Forensic Biomechanics Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg Vossstrasse 2 69115 Heidelberg Germany; "Dear Dr. Kallieris: This responds to your FAX to Dr. Rolf Eppinger o NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of the requirements specified in Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting. The answers to your two questions are provided below. Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicles that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery. You stated that you have conducted 30 m.p.h. crash tests of motor vehicles with freshly adhered windshields. In the test vehicle, two Hybrid III dummies were placed in the front driver and passenger positions. Each dummy was restrained 'by a three-point belt and air bag.' Your first question asked whether the vehicle is subject to the requirements of S5.1 for 'vehicles equipped with passive restraints,' or S5.2 for 'vehicles not equipped with passive restraints.' The answer to your question depends on whether the restraint system in the tested vehicle meets the definition of 'passive restraint system' set forth in S4 of the standard. That term is defined as: a system meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5. of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Section S5 of Standard No. 208 sets occupant protection requirements that must be met in frontal, lateral and rollover crashes. You did not provide much information about the vehicle in question. We assume it is a passenger car. Standard No. 208 (S4.1.4) requires the following of current production passenger cars: (a) At each front outboard designated seating position, each vehicle must meet the standard's frontal crash protection requirements (S5.1) by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (e.g., by means of an air bag or automatic restraints), (b) at the front center designated seating position and at each rear seating position, have a type 1 (lap) or type 2 (lap/shoulder) belt assembly that meet specified requirements, and (c) either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, or at each front outboard designated seating position, have a type 1 or type 2 belt assembly that meets the requirements of S5.1 with front test dummies restrained by the type 1 or type 2 assembly in addition to the means that require no action by the vehicle occupant. We assume that the 'three-point belt and air bag' to which you refer were installed in the front outboard seating positions pursuant to these occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. NHTSA's longstanding position is that a vehicle equipped with a type 2 belt assembly and an air bag in those seating positions is equipped with a 'passive restraint system,' and is thus subject to the requirement of S5.1 that 50 percent of the windshield periphery must be retained. (See, e.g., August 18, 1986 letter to Volvo, copy enclosed.) As discussed in the enclosed letter, one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles was because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield, and incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield. The Standard No. 208 requirements listed above mean that a vehicle with passive restraints must meet the Standard No. 208 performance critera using only the passive restraints (air bag or automatic seat belt), and using both the passive and manual restraints. This would also be the case for Standard No. 212. The windshield retention would have to be at least 50 percent with the dummies restrained by only the passive restraint, and with the dummies restrained by both the passive and manual restraints. Therefore, your test (which appeared to have been conducted using both the air bag and the type 2 belt assembly) may not have been the worst case situation. Your second question asked whether the windshield displacements described in S5.1 and S5.2 are measured dynamically (i.e., during the crash), or statically (i.e., after the crash). NHTSA determines the portion of the windshield periphery that is retained by the vehicle after the dynamic crash test specified in the standard. I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX no. is (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4917OpenMr. 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 responds to your letter of August 19, 1991 requesting an interpretation of section S5.3.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. That section specifies two force application options for release mechanisms of emergency exits, low force application and high force application. Your letter was sent in connection with an investigation by NHTSA's Office of Enforcement of a possible noncompliance of a 1990 Blue Bird bus with that standard, and you sent a sample bus window to assist in understanding your letter. You requested confirmation of your understanding that the requirements of section S5.3.2, 'with regard to motion, apply to the application forces and not the release mechanisms being activated by the forces.' You also requested confirmation of your 'understanding of the principles of mechanics, as applicable to FMVSS 217 requirements, that straight linear forces can cause rotary motion to occur and can be used to manually operate a rotary mechanism.' You asked these questions to support your contention that the release mechanism of the 1990 Blue Bird bus window can be operated by a force that is straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface, and that the high force application option is therefore available for that window. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. Section S5.3.2 specifies that certain emergency exits 'shall allow manual release of the exit by a single occupant using force applications each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer, either to (a) or (b).' Subparagraphs (a) and (b) set forth requirements for the two application force options, low force and high force. The specified requirements cover location, type of motion, and magnitude. The type of motion specified in (a) for low force application is 'rotary or straight', the type of motion specified in (b) for high force application is 'straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' We agree that the requirements in (a) and (b) concerning type of motion refer to the force applications that would be made by a single occupant and not to the release mechanisms that are activated by such force applications. While we do not disagree with your contention that it is possible for straight linear forces to cause rotary motion to occur, we do not believe, based on our examination of your sample bus window, that the force application that must be made by a single occupant to release the window would be 'straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' We interpret the term 'type of motion,' as used in (a) and (b), to refer to the entire motion of a force application that would be made by a single occupant in releasing an exit. In order to operate the release mechanism on the Blue Bird bus, it appears that a single occupant must lift the release handle upward as well as pulling it outward. Given the upward part of the motion, it would not be 'perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' Therefore, the high force application option is not available for such a design, and it must meet the low force application requirements. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5605OpenKaren Coffey, Esq. Chief Counsel Texas Automobile Dealers Association 1106 Lavaca P.O. Box 1028 Austin, Texas 78767-1028; Karen Coffey Esq. Chief Counsel Texas Automobile Dealers Association 1106 Lavaca P.O. Box 1028 Austin Texas 78767-1028; FAX: 512-476-2179 Dear Ms. Coffey: This responds to your letter askin whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state, 'a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable.' In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually. As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor. By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement. Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law. In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Glancy of my staff at (202)366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0057OpenMr. A. D. Prickett, Chief Engineer - Special Duties, Joseph Lucas Limited, Great King Street, Birmingham 19, England; Mr. A. D. Prickett Chief Engineer - Special Duties Joseph Lucas Limited Great King Street Birmingham 19 England; Dear Mr. Prickett: Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1968, to the Deputy Director National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning your interpretation of certain requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; The installation requirements contained in the SAE Standards that ar referenced in Standard No. 108 are enforceable requirements unless specifically exempted by Standard No. 108. With respect to the installation of license plate lamps, Standard No. 108 provides an exception to the 'Installation Recommendations' contained in SAE Standard J587b, in that Standard No. 108 requires a location 'at rear license plate.' This exception permits installation of the lamp at the top, sides or bottom of the license plate, instead of top and sides only as specified by SAE installation recommendations.; With two exceptions, the lighting devices required by Standard No. 10 must use bulbs conforming to SAE Standard J573b and bulb sockets conforming to either SAE Standard J567b or SAE Standard J822. The two exceptions are (1) motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584, and (2) disposable (throw-away) type lamp assemblies (other than sealed-beam headlamps) that do not use sockets. Sealed-beam headlamps must conform to SAE Standards J579a and J580a which, in turn, require sealed units conforming to SAE Standard J573b, but do not require sockets conforming to SAE Standards J567b or J822. The disposable type lamps((2) above) are excepted from the requirements of SAE Standard J567b since they are equipped with non-replaceable bulbs and electrical connectors rather than sockets. It is to be noted that Standard No. 108 is not applicable to motorcycles until January 1, 1969.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
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.