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: aiam2396OpenMr. Edgar E. Lungren, Jr., Pullman Trailmobile, 200 East Randolf Drive, Chicago, Il 60601; Mr. Edgar E. Lungren Jr. Pullman Trailmobile 200 East Randolf Drive Chicago Il 60601; Dear Mr. Lungren: This responds to Trailmobile's August 13, 1976, question whether trailer would be considered to be newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with applicable safety standards if it is assembled from all new materials except for axles (axle beams, spindles and brakes, and associated brake drums, wheels, seals, and bearings) from an existing trailer whose identify and ownership would be continued in the reassembled trailer.; The answer to this question is yes. The assembly of a trailer entirel from new materials except for the trailer axles does not qualify as a 'repair' under NHTSA regulations (49 CFR S 571.7(f). This regulation states that such trailers will be considered newly manufactured unless, 'at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking, and suspension) is not new ...' In the case you describe, the suspension would be new.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1943OpenWarren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Commander Heath: This is a further reply to your letter dated January 21, 1975, askin several questions regarding Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.' We have attempted to incorporate the substance of your questions in our various answers.; 1. *Prime Glazing Material Manufacturer.* A company that buys and the bends or otherwise forms flat plastic glazing material into a motorcycle windshield is *not* a prime glazing material manufacturer, nor is a company which blows or stretches flat plastic glazing material that is purchased from another company. Prime glazing material manufacturers are only those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. In neither of the examples you pose is the material fabricated, laminated, or tempered by the company in question.; 2. *Marking Requirements.* In the amendment to Standard No. 20 published November 11, 1972, (37 FR 24035), it was our intention to limit the use of the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code number to the prime glazing material manufacturer. Persons who cut glazing fabricated by others should not under Standard No. 205 utilize the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol. Our purpose in structuring the marking requirements this way was to enable us to determine, for purposes of attributing responsibility for conformity, which glazing in a motor vehicle had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle, and which glazing had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation.; >>>(a) You are correct in your interpretation that the DOT symbol an the code number are applied by a prime glazing material manufacturer in addition to the manufacturer's trademark. It was our expectation that the prime manufacturer would furnish his customers with a heat stamp of the markings required by Section 6 of ANS Z26, without the DOT symbol and code number, by which the manufacturer cutting or otherwise shaping the material would mark those pieces he cut or shaped.; (b) Glazing produced by a prime glazing material manufacturer that i not designed for use in a specific vehicle should not contain the DOT symbol or the manufacturer's code number.; (c) The NHTSA has assigned numbers only to prime glazing materia manufacturers. We have not inquired, however, whether the company is in fact producing glazing materials for use in specific vehicle applications.; (d) As stated previously, a company which does not manufacture it glazing but which cuts glazing from larger pieces purchased from the producer of the material should not be using the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol.; (e) You are correct in your conclusion that the marking requirements o the standard do not apply to dealers. However any person (including a dealer) who sells glazing (separately or in a new vehicle) which is improperly marked may be violating Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.<<<; 3. *General Requirements.* >>>(a) Standard No. 205 does presently prohibit dealers from using th prime glazing material manufacturer's code number. If you are aware of instances where this requirement is not being followed, please forward to us the particulars of the cases in question and we will take appropriate action.; (b) Manufacturers who purchase glazing in large sheets and then cut i to fit window frames are not prime manufacturers and may not use the DOT symbol or manufacturer's code number. You are therefore not correct in your statement that a manufacturer of a window assembly may use the prime manufacturer's number even when the window manufactured is for a special application.; (c) The model number of glazing used in motorcycle windshields shoul be that which is assigned to it by the prime glazing material manufacturer in the glazing's original thickness. ANS Z26 calls for testing plastic glazing materials in substantially flat specimens, and not in molded specimens. However, the Federal standard does not require testing. Manufacturers are required only to use due care in the manufacture of their products. A person reforming' the plastic does not thereby become a prime glazing material manufacturer.; (d) The markings which should appear on plastic bubbles on minivan should be those of the prime manufacturer (not the DOT symbol or code number) of the glazing material and not those of the person who reshapes the glazing.; (e) A material marked AS4 that was used as a motorcycle windshiel would technically fail to conform to the standard as the standard does not provide for the use of AS4 materials in motorcycle windshields. However, if the material also conformed to the requirements of AS6 (which is permitted to be used in motorcycle windshields), the nonconformity would not be considered significant.; (f) Our basic approach has been that the standard applies to th vehicle locations specified in ANS Z26, and to any glazing (glass or plastics) used in those locations. However, opaque plastic materials which are clearly structural materials do not fall within the ambit of Standard No. 205.; (g) Standard No. 205 presently limits the use of plastic glazin materials in buses to readily removable windows, which include push-out windows. Plastic materials may not be used in buses in fixed quarter panels or sliding windows that are not readily removable.; We believe our reasons to be valid for limiting the use of the DO symbol and manufacturer's code number to glazing manufactured by prime manufacturers for use in a specific vehicle location. However, we would certainly be willing to consider steps you might suggest to facilitate State inspections that are consistent with the purposes of the labeling requirements presently in effect. Such a suggestion should be in the form of a petition to amend Standard No. 205 and should be specific.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0651OpenMr. Vern A. Moultrie, Manager, Manufacturing & Service, Schetky Equipment Corporation, P. O. Box 13365, Portland, OR 97213; Mr. Vern A. Moultrie Manager Manufacturing & Service Schetky Equipment Corporation P. O. Box 13365 Portland OR 97213; Dear Mr. Moultrie: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1972, in which you reques clarification of the Certification requirements (49 CFR Part 567). You ask whether certification is necessary, mentioning specifically certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.108, when you install new dump bodies on used chassis manufactured both before and after January 1, 1968.; The motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new vehicles, an neither compliance with the standards nor 'Certification' is required if you are installing truck bodies on used chassis.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4612OpenMr. P.H. Moes President U.S. Trade Corp. 1661 Katy Lane Fort Mill, SC 29715; Mr. P.H. Moes President U.S. Trade Corp. 1661 Katy Lane Fort Mill SC 29715; "Dear Mr. Moes: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1989 requesting an interpretation of your company's obligations and responsibilities when importing and converting motor vehicles for use in the United States. Specifically, you asked about the effects of the differing practices of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to indicating the importer of record on their respective import forms, Form HS-7 and Form 3250-1. You also asked about your obligations for annual CAFE reporting. Your understanding that the vehicle owner is normally shown as the importer of record on DOT Form HS-7 is correct. EPA, on the other hand, requires that for purposes of certification under EPA Form 3520-1, an independent commercial importer (ICI) registered with EPA must be shown as the importer of record. You indicated that these two different designations of the importer of record have caused confusion in your dealings with U.S. Customs officials. You state that those officials have sometimes required customs brokers to list your company as the importer of record on the DOT forms as well as on the EPA form. The Customs Service headquarters office has recognized that there has been some confusion in the past, but has indicated to NHTSA that it intends to clarify this matter with its field offices. You should thus instruct your brokers to continue to indicate the vehicle's owner as the importer of record on the DOT importation declaration, Form HS-7 and the checklist of conformance operations, Form HS-189, if submitted. With respect to CAFE reporting, section 501(9) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, (15 USC 1901, at 200l(9)) defines the term 'manufacture' as meaning '... to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States, or to import' (emphasis added). Thus, under the Cost Savings Act, an importer is clearly a manufacturer for purposes ofCAFE requirements. Section 502 of the Cost Savings Act (l5 USC 2002) requires all manufacturers to comply with the CAFE standards for their vehicles, and section 505 (l5 USC 2005) sets out CAFE reporting requirements for such manufacturers. (See also, 49 CFR /537.5). As with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391 et seq.), it is the importer of record, as shown on Form HS-7, who must comply with these reporting requirements. Your firm, however, may be required to report fuel economy data to EPA. See, 40 CFR //85.1510(f), 600.312-86.) I hope you have found this information helpful. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1410OpenMr. H.W. Gerth, Mercedes-Benz of No. America, One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, New Jersey 07645; Mr. H.W. Gerth Mercedes-Benz of No. America One Mercedes Drive Montvale New Jersey 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1973, asking whethe each of the following tire labeling formats used by the Michelin Tire Corporation complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard NO. 109:; 1. '2 steel tread plies/ 2 rayon body plies', 2. 'max. load 1,310 lbs at 36 psi max press.' We find that the first label format fails to conform to the standard Paragraph S4.3(e) requires the tire to be labeled with, 'the actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual number of plies in the tread area, if different.' The labeling format used by Michelin creates the impression, contrary to the stated requirements, that the number of plies in the sidewall and the tread area is the same. *viz.* '2'. We consider the body plies, running from bead to bead and lying under the plies in the tread area, to be counted also as plies in the tread area. Thus, the number of plies in the tread area is '4', 2 steel and 2 rayon. Moreover, while we understand the words 'body plies' to be essentially synonymous with 'sidewall plies', we fell there is little justification for departing from the word of the standard, which uses the word 'sidewall' in referring to plies.; We find the second labeling format, that dealing with maximu permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating, to conform to Standard No. 109. The words 'permissible,' 'inflation,' and 'rating' are not essential to conformity as long as the appropriate values, clearly identified, are provided.; For your information, I point out that NHTSA test laboratories ar without authority to interpret Federal motor vehicle safety standards or provide such interpretations to companies whose products they test. Only interpretations issued in the form of correspondence signed by authorized NHTSA personnel or by notice published in the *Federal Register* are considered by this agency to be binding.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3587OpenMr. Ronald E. DeVolder, Vice President, Roberts Motor Company, 550 N.E. Columbia Boulevard, Portland, OR 97211; Mr. Ronald E. DeVolder Vice President Roberts Motor Company 550 N.E. Columbia Boulevard Portland OR 97211; Dear Mr. DeVolder: This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1982, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You enclose photos of a 1982 Kenworth truck which has two pairs o front turn signal lamps: one set (incorporating a side reflector) mounted 58 1/2 inches above the road surface and which are 83 inches apart, the other, mounted approximately 81 1/2 inches above the road surface and which are 110 inches apart. You have asked whether the vehicle would comply if the lower mounted set were removed and an amber reflex reflector placed on each side of the fender as far forward as practicable.; The answer is yes. The mounting height of 81 1/2 inches does not excee the limit of 83 inches imposed by Table II of Standard No. 108. In addition, the lamps appear to meet the two further requirements that they be located as far apart as practicable and at the same height.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4242OpenMr. Tim O. Edwards, Safety Specialist, Kansas Department of Transportation, Bureau of Personnel Services, 7th Floor, State Office Building, Topeka, KS 66612; Mr. Tim O. Edwards Safety Specialist Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Personnel Services 7th Floor State Office Building Topeka KS 66612; Dear Mr. Edwards: I am writing in response to your recent inquiry concerning interio over-head luggage racks on school buses. Your first question seeks this Agency's opinion on whether interior luggage racks on school buses should be considered 'projections likely to cause injury' under the National Minimum Schoolbus Standards. These standards are recommendations by the National Conference on School Transportation (NCST), and are not developed by NHTSA. Requests for interpretation of these Standards should be mailed to the Interpretation Committee, addressed to:; >>>Mr. Norman Loper, Coordinator of Pupil Transportation, Alabam Department of Education, 304 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130<<<; Requests for modification to these Standards and development of ne Standards should be directed to the chairman of the Interim Committee, addressed to:; >>>Mr. Bill G. Loshbough, Asst. State Supt. for Transportation, Dept of Education, Education Bldg., Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786<<<; In response to your second question, there are no federal standards o regulations which specifically address the issue of over-head luggage racks on school buses. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) S571.222 addresses the issue of school bus passenger seating and crash protection. Specifically, S5.3.1 of that standard establishes the head protection zones. As defined in S5.3.1.1, that zone extends up to a horizontal plane 40 inches above the seating reference point. If the luggage rack were to be located within the head protection zone, the rack would have to meet the head form impact requirement in S5.3.1.2 and the head form force distribution requirement in S5.3.1.3.; Please feel free to contact this office if you have any othe questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1040OpenMr. Norman E. Salzman, General Manager, The Fairmount Press, P.O. Box 3, Bronx, NY 10453; Mr. Norman E. Salzman General Manager The Fairmount Press P.O. Box 3 Bronx NY 10453; Dear Mr. Salzman: This is in response to your letter to Mr. Paris of February 28, 1973 concerning the Federal odometer Disclosure Requirements.; You ask, first, whether provision has been made for resale by wholesaler. By this you appear to suggest that wholesalers are not, or should not be, required to give a statement upon each resale. Our reply is that a wholesaler is on the same footing as any other transferor. If he owns the vehicle, however briefly, and resells it, he must disclose the mileage upon resale.; Your second question concerns the penalty for not issuing the require mileage statement. Our reply is that a failure to disclose is a violation of the requirements of the Act and is therefore subject to injunction under section 410. Furthermore, in the event that there are problems with an odometer, your failure to submit a statement would seriously undermine your defense in an action brought under section 409.; Your last question is whether both the New York form and the Federa form are necessary. Although we do not have a copy of the New York form, it is our understanding that it contains the greater part of the information required by our regulations. If the balance of the information can be added, we would not object to the use of the New York form to satisfy the Federal requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0082OpenMr. D. S. Jarman, National Service Manager, Service Department, Volvo, Incorporated, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. D. S. Jarman National Service Manager Service Department Volvo Incorporated Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Jarman: Thank you for your letter of May 15, 1968, concerning electricall heated glass which you anticipate using for rear windows in your motor vehicles.; The present glazing requirement for motor vehicles are covered in Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials.' Section S3, Requirements, stipulates that the glazing materials used must conform to U.S.A. Standard Z 26.1-1966, 'American Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' July 15, 1966. If the electrically heated glass you mentioned meets the requirements of Standard No. 205, we would have no objection to its use.; Sincerely, George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4868OpenMr. David A. White Manager, Reliability Grumman Olson P.O. Box 2005 Sturgis, MI 49091; Mr. David A. White Manager Reliability Grumman Olson P.O. Box 2005 Sturgis MI 49091; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your 'notification of noncompliance with 49 CFR Part 567 dated March 12, l99l, and addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Grumman has omitted to provide a VIN on the vehicle certification label, as required by section 567.4(g)(6). You have petitioned 'to have the noncompliance deemed inconsequential', and are 'seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires notification and remedy for noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for defects that relate to motor vehicle safety. The requirement that Grumman fails to meet is not contained in Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, but in a regulation that is not part of the Safety Standards (Part 571). Thus, a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not occurred. Furthermore, failure to provide information on the certification label in accordance with Part 567 is not a 'defect'. The Act defines a defect as a 'defect in performance, construction, components or materials.' Clearly this does not exist. In sum, there is no legal obligation upon Grumman Olson to notify and remedy under these circumstances, and the company is free to take whatever action it deems desirable in this case. Failure to comply with Part 567 is a violation of the Safety Act for which a civil penalty may be imposed, but the agency does not intend to seek a penalty in this matter. Nonetheless, we encourage Grumman Olson to take steps necessary to ensure that further violations do not occur. Sincerely, 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.