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: aiam5541OpenMr. Lance Tunick Vehicle Science Corporation P.O. Box 1015 Golden, CO 80402-1015; Mr. Lance Tunick Vehicle Science Corporation P.O. Box 1015 Golden CO 80402-1015; Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your FAX of April 19, 1995 requesting clarification of an April 3, 1995, letter from this office. You asked for verification that the 'seat belt anchorages in the following scenario are exempt from the location requirement of Standard No. 210: A vehicle with 2 front seating positions that is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and such restraint meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the air bags alone and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested under FMVSS 208.' Your understanding is correct. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2284OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in response to your April 14, 1976, letter concerning th meaning of the effective dates of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; You are correct in your understanding that a vehicle's date of sale i irrelevant to a determination of which standards are applicable to it. 49 CFR S 571.7(a), *Applicability*, specifies in relevant part:; >>>...each standard ... applies according to its terms to all moto vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard.<<<; For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a chassis, you ar permitted by 49 CFR S 567.5(a)(7) to treat as the time that manufacture is 'completed' for the purposes of S 571.7(a) any date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle and no later than the date of completion of final-stage manufacture, regardless of when the body or chassis was sold. Please note that you must be consistent in your choice of completion date, e.g., you may not choose one date to determine applicability of certain standards while choosing another date for other standards.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1851OpenMr. Danny Lanzdorf, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, 2307 Oregon Street, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Danny Lanzdorf Oshkosh Truck Corporation 2307 Oregon Street Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Lanzdorf: This responds to the questions you raised in a March 18, 1975 telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective date of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses,* as applied to the brake hose assemblies in fire trucks which you manufacture.; Standard No. 106-74 became effective for brake hose assemblies on Marc 1, 1975. An assembly which is not completed until it is installed in a vehice (sic) is considered to have been manufactured on the date of installation. If that installation occurred on or after March 1, then the assembly must comply with the standard. While 49 CFR Part 571.8 provides in certain cases for delay of the effective date of a standard with respect to firefighting vehicles, such a delay is available only for a vehicle requirement. There is no change in the March 1, 1975, effective date for brake hose assemblies.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0743OpenMr. Lewis B. Hastings, Director of Government Relations, Rubber Manufacturers Association, 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. Lewis B. Hastings Director of Government Relations Rubber Manufacturers Association 1346 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Hastings: #This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1972 asking whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts the various States from enforcing the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission's Regulation V-1 with respect to passenger car tires. #Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) requires any State law applicable to the same aspect of motor vehicle performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard to be identical to the Federal standard. We believe this section, considered in light of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, invalidates any State law that requires passenger car tires (except tires procured by a State for its own use) to meet the VESC Regulation V-1, or to be labeled with the V-1 symbol. #Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5111OpenMr. Eugene Berk Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health Office of Compliance and Surveillance 1390 Piccard Dr. Rockville, MD 20850; Mr. Eugene Berk Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health Office of Compliance and Surveillance 1390 Piccard Dr. Rockville MD 20850; "Dear Mr. Berk: This follows up on telephone conversations between yo and Deirdre Fujita of my staff about a letter you received from the Medical Device Inspection Company (MDI) concerning the 'Tumble Forms LifeSeat.' While much of the information in the letter is subject to a claim of confidentiality, Ms. Carolann Kotula-Cook of MDI told us that we can provide, for purposes of a letter that will be placed in the public docket, the following description of the LifeSeat. The LifeSeat is described by MDI as 'a safety seat designed to protect children who are riding in emergency medical vehicles. The seat is designed to be secured to the ambulance stretcher or cot... and may also be secured to the vehicle's captain's chair.' You ask whether the LifeSeat is a 'child restraint system' regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems.' As discussed below, the answer is yes. Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. The term 'child restraint system' is defined in S4 of the standard as 'any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.' As described in MDI's letter, the LifeSeat meets the child restraint system definition, since it is designed to restrain or seat a child in a motor vehicle. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each child restraint system that is sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. Since the LifeSeat is a child restraint system, it must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. We informed Ms. Kotula-Cook that it appears the LifeSeat would not comply with some of Standard No. 213's requirements. We have sent her a copy of the standard, and an information sheet for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The information sheet describes manufacturers' responsibilities under Federal law for manufacturing vehicles and items of equipment, such as the responsibility to ensure these products do not have any safety-related defects. Ms. Kotula-Cook said that MDI will be contacting us directly for more information about Standard No. 213 and these responsibilities. We are returning the copy of MDI's letter you provided us. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0313OpenMr. Donald J. Lewis, Automotive Products Division, Allied Chemical Corporation, 353 Cass Avenue, Mount Clemens, MI 48043; Mr. Donald J. Lewis Automotive Products Division Allied Chemical Corporation 353 Cass Avenue Mount Clemens MI 48043; Dear Mr. Lewis: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1971, requesting ou interpretation of S4.5.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. You have asked whether the requirement of S4.5.2 that 'all electrical circuits' must be monitored would mean that a bridgewire circuit in an electroexplosive device would have to be monitored. Our answer is that such a circuit must be monitored, although it should be noted that monitoring need not be continuous, but may be designed to occur, for example, only when the ignition is in the 'start' position.; Your letter points out several potential problems with the inclusion o such a bridgewire circuit among the monitored systems. We are giving consideration to the self-monitoring requirement in the light of the comments we have received, with a view to possible amendments that may be found advisable.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3495OpenMr. David McLaughlin, Dart Transit Company, 2102 University Ave., St. Paul, MN 55114; Mr. David McLaughlin Dart Transit Company 2102 University Ave. St. Paul MN 55114; Dear Mr. McLaughlin: This responds to your recent telephone conversations with Roge Fairchild of this office, in which you requested our approval for Freuhauf to change the vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) on certain of its trailers which your company purchased. As we understand your situation, your company intended to purchase and Freuhauf intended to provide you 1980 model year trailers. The trailers you actually received had Freuhauf's statements of origin indicating they are 1980 model year trailers. However, the first character of the third section of the trailers' VIN's is apparently a 'B,' thus indicating that the model year is 1981. Freuhauf reportedly wishes to correct the VIN's and use an 'A' instead of a 'B,' thus indicating the 1980 model year. We understand that these vehicles were not manufactured in serial sequence, but are scattered randomly through the manufacturer's production run.; Based on our understanding of the facts you have provided us, thi agency does not have any objection to this change being made by Freuhauf. The requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 provide the manufacturers with substantial latitude regarding model year designation. S4.5.3.1 of the Standard requires that the first character of the third section of the VIN indicate the model year. S3 of the Standard defines 'model year' as 'the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than 2 years.' In issuing the standard, the agency anticipated that once the manufacturer of a discrete vehicle model switched from designating those vehicles with a given model year (e.g., 1983) to the next model year (i.e., 1984), the manufacturer would uniformly designate all vehicles with that new model year until it switched to designating all vehicles uniformly as being produced in the following model year (i.e., 1985). More than any other user of the VIN, the manufacturer itself would benefit from this practice since it promotes the orderliness of records. However, Standard No. 115 does not actually require that this practice be followed. Further, the departure from the practice in a limited circumstance should not pose any significant practical problem for the users of the VIN's of trailers in question.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4350OpenMr. Noel H. McCormick, Personal Lines Coordination Manager, Sentry Insurance, 1800 North Point Drive, Stevens Point, WI 54481; Mr. Noel H. McCormick Personal Lines Coordination Manager Sentry Insurance 1800 North Point Drive Stevens Point WI 54481; Dear Mr. McCormick: This responds to your letters to our Administrator, concerning whethe your company should be subject to 49 CFR Part 544, *Insurer Reporting Requirements*, for the reports due not later than October 25, 1987. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our rulemaking procedures to you.; As you know, we publish annual amendments to the listing of insuranc companies subject to the reporting requirements of Part 544. These amendments are made in accordance with the informal rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. Those provisions require the agency to publish a proposed listing of insurers subject to the reporting requirements, and give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal. After all comments are received, the agency evaluates the comments and publishes a final listing.; On May 28, 1987, we published a proposed listing of insurers that woul be subject to the reporting requirements for the October, 1987 reports, 52 FR 19898 (copy enclosed). As you will see, this proposed listing identifies your company as one that would be subject to the reporting requirements. The comment period for this proposal closes on July 13, 1987. The agency will consider all comments received as of that date in preparing the final listing of insurance companies required to file a report in October, 1987.; Pursuant to normal informal rulemaking procedures, your first letter o this subject was treated as a comment on the proposed listing and put in the public docket for this rulemaking action, along with any other comments we receive on the proposed listing. In your most recent letter, you stated that, in a telephone conversation with agency staff, you 'did not receive an adequate explanation' of why your company would be subject to these reporting requirements. Therefore, you stated that your company does not plan to file an October, 1987 report. Agency staff *cannot* offer any opinions about what the final agency decision on this matter will be before the decision has been made. No final decision can be made until all comments have been considered and the statutory provisions and past agency positions reexamined. This procedure will begin after July 13, 1987, when the comment period closes.; You should be aware of the fact that if your company is included in th final listing of subject insurance companies and you do not file the required report, this agency has authority to seek both a civil penalty and injunctive relief against your company, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2028.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1152OpenMr. Paul G. Scully, Vice President, The Grote Manufacturing Company, State Route 7, P.O. Box 766, Madison, IN 47250; Mr. Paul G. Scully Vice President The Grote Manufacturing Company State Route 7 P.O. Box 766 Madison IN 47250; Dear Mr. Scully: In your letter of June 4, 1973 you have asked whether a manufacture may comply with revisions made by the SAE to SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 in the absence of an amendment by NHTSA.; The answer is no, and your understanding is correct. A manufacture must comply with the specific SAE standard and revision set forth in Standard No. 108, regardless of any succeeding revisions made by the SAE.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4700OpenGeorge F. Ball, Esq. Legal Staff General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232; George F. Ball Esq. Legal Staff General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit MI 48232; "Dear Mr. Ball: This is in response to your letter of January 23, 199 asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201). Specifically, you asked whether the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201, which apply only to 'interior compartment doors,' are applicable to a portion of a new cupholder design now being developed by GM. At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards would apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information. With those caveats, I believe that S3.3 of Standard No. 201 would not apply to your cupholder design, as explained more fully below. In your letter, you stated that General Motors plans to offer a vehicle with a cupholder permanently installed in the console assembly between the driver and right front passenger positions. The cupholder assembly would include a pivot, which would allow the cupholder to recess into the console when it is not needed. When the cupholder is recessed, the bottom face of the cupholder assembly would be flush with the console assembly. I concur with your opinion that the bottom face of the cupholder would not appear to be covered by section 3.3 of Standard No. 201, because that bottom face does not appear to be an 'interior compartment door' as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. The term 'interior compartment door' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as 'any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects.' According to your letter, when the bottom of the cupholder is facing the driver and passenger (which you state is the only configuration in which it could be considered a cover), there is no storage space for personal effects. The agency has made clear that the term 'interior compartment door' does not refer to every door that covers a compartment that could potentially be used as a storage space for personal effects. For example, ash trays and spare tire compartment doors in station wagons are capable of being used as a storage space for some personal effects. However, the preamble to the final rule that added S3.3 to Standard No. 201 expressly stated that S3.3 did not apply to the covers for ash trays and spare tire compartment doors in the Standard. 33 FR 15794 (October 25, 1968). Additionally, the agency has stated in previous interpretations that S3.3 of Standard No. 201 does not apply to doors in the interior of a vehicle that do not cover a storage space for personal effects. Hence, the door to a fuse box in the interior of a vehicle was said not to be subject to S3.3 in a July 3, 1984 letter to Mr. Bruce Henderson, and the outside surface of a fold-down table was said to be not subject to S3.3 in a January 31, 1986 letter to Mr. Russ Bomhoff. Applying this reasoning to your new cupholder design, we would tentatively conclude that, when the cupholder is retracted, the bottom face of the cupholder is not an interior compartment door subject to S3.3 of Standard No. 201. I do not believe that the compartment that would be covered by the bottom face of the cupholder when it is retracted would be a storage space for personal effects. Even if the compartment were capable of being used as a storage space for personal effects, it would not have been installed by the manufacturer for that purpose. Therefore, the bottom face of the cupholder would not be considered an 'interior compartment door' within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR 571.3, and would not be subject to the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting 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.