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: 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: aiam0378OpenMr. H.H. Vischer, Vice President, Bandag Incorporated, 1056 Hershey Avenue, Muscatine, IA 52761; Mr. H.H. Vischer Vice President Bandag Incorporated 1056 Hershey Avenue Muscatine IA 52761; Dear Mr. Vischer: This is in reply to your letter of May 10, 1971, and to confir opinions given by members of this office in subsequent phone conversations with you.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulation issued pursuant to it the treadless casing you import is not considered to be a completed tire until the tread is applied. Therefore, the Bandag dealer applying the tread is considered to be the tire manufacturer and the Korean manufacturer of the casing does not have to put his own 'DOT' number on the casing.; Since you expect many of your dealers will be using this process, i order not to unduly expend the new manufacturer's list, all your dealers are to use your assigned code number 'XX' for the grouping representing the manufacturer's assigned code and their own three symbol retreader's code in the third grouping which is normally considered the optional code:(sic); Your dealers, as manufacturers of the tires are responsible fo maintaining the records of the first purchaser of the tires they manufacturer (sic).; I believe Docket No. 70-12, Notice No. 9 (36 F.R. 9869) answers you question concerning the location of tire identification numbers.; Sincerely, E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2715OpenMr. T. V. Barlow, Britax (Wingard) Limited, Chichester West Sussex PO19 2UG; Mr. T. V. Barlow Britax (Wingard) Limited Chichester West Sussex PO19 2UG; Dear Mr. Barlow: This responds to your letter of October 24, 1977, asking whethe Federal safety standards permit passive safety belts to be equipped with conventional buckles for emergency release.; In answer to your question, Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection*, not only permits buckles on passive belt systems, it requires them. Under paragraphs S4.5.3.3 and S7.2 of the standard, passive seat belt assemblies are required to have a latch mechanism that releases the restraints. The release is required to be at a single point by pushbutton action.; Please contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0728OpenMr. Cesar E. Cavanna, Chief Engineer, Lox Equipment Company, 355 So. Vasco Road, Livermore, CA 94550; Mr. Cesar E. Cavanna Chief Engineer Lox Equipment Company 355 So. Vasco Road Livermore CA 94550; Dear Mr. Cavanna: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1972, concerning problem you are having establishing gross axle weight ratings on vehicles you manufacture. You indicate that the problem occurs because brake drums which you use do not come with manufacturer's ratings, but are merely recommended for use with certain axles. You also ask whether a motor vehicle safety standard will require a 40-foot stopping distance from 20 mph.; Your understanding that brake drum capability does not have to b considered in determining gross axle weight rating is not entirely correct. The gross axle weight rating, which is the load carrying capacity of a single axle system (49 CFR 571.3), is a measure of the safe load-carrying capacity of the entire axle system. Manufacturers should include components in their vehicles that are designed to handle loads up to these ratings. Normally an assembler can rely on the specifications or the advice of a reputable supplier as to the capacity of the supplier's components. We expect manufacturers to exercise due care in ensuring that purchased components are adequate and safe for the vehicles they are used on, in accordance with careful business practices. These do not necessarily have to take the form of formal 'ratings.'; With reference to your question regarding stopping distance, Standar No. 121, Air Brake Systems, effective September 1, 1974 (not July 1, 1972) will, among other things, require a vehicle to stop from 20 mph in 33 and 54 feet on surfaces with skid numbers of 75 and 30 respectively.; 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.