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: aiam3670OpenMr. Robert P. Eschino, Vice President, Gold Bug, 2151 West 57th Avenue, Denver, CO 80221; Mr. Robert P. Eschino Vice President Gold Bug 2151 West 57th Avenue Denver CO 80221; Dear Mr. Eschino: This responds to your February 9, 1983, letter asking about th compliance of a device that you manufacture with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The device is a head support for children which has several uses, one of which would be in a car seat. You specifically ask to obtain the Federal seal for use on your package.; Only those items of equipment to which specific Federal safet standards apply are marked with the DOT symbol which indicates that they are in compliance with applicable safety standards. From our analysis of your product, it is not a piece of equipment subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Since your device does not need to comply with any of our requirements, you would not need, nor would you be permitted to use, the DOT symbol.; We would recommend, however, from a product liability point of vie that you ensure that your product complies with flammability requirements. I am enclosing a copy of our flammability standard that you might use as a guideline, although as I stated earlier, you would not be required to comply with this standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3220OpenMr. Heinz W. Gerth, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Heinz W. Gerth Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive P.O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth:#This responds to your letter forwarded to us by Mr Jerry Sonosky, requesting an interpretation of the term 'overall width' as used in Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*. You ask questions: (1) whether overall width means the design width of a vehicle, or whether it means the maximum possible width allowed by design tolerances, and (2) whether overall width includes plastic, splash molding attached to the vehicle body with screws and nuts.#In answer to your first question, overall width means the maximum design width of the vehicle including tolerances.#Safety Standard No. 104 defines 'overall width' as the maximum overall body width dimension 'W116,' as defined in section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aero-space-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. The 'W116' standard specifies that overall width is measured across the body, excluding hardware and applied moldings, but including fenders when integral with the body. Therefore, the overall width of a vehicle would not include splash molding on the sides of the vehicle.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2061OpenMr. and Mrs. Sten Kienzler, 205 S. Liberty Street, Albion, IN 46701; Mr. and Mrs. Sten Kienzler 205 S. Liberty Street Albion IN 46701; Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kienzler: This is in response to your letter of September 8, 1975, concernin apparent alteration of the odometer on the 1971 Pontiac Ventura II you traded in to Mosher Motor Sales.; The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513 prohibits disconnection, resetting, or alteration of a vehicle odometer with intent to change the number of miles indicated thereon. It also requires the execution of a written disclosure of a vehicle's mileage at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. A false statement on the disclosure form, knowingly made by the transferor, is considered a violation of the Act.; Violation of any of these requirements, committed with the intent t defraud, makes available to the buyer a civil remedy in the amount of $1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal court.; The situation you describe in your letter indicates that there hav been at least two violations of the Act by the dealer to whom you traded you car. If the person who purchased the vehicle from him becomes aware of the violations they will be able to sue according to the procedure described above. The only danger that exists for you relates to the absence of an odometer disclosure statement executed by you at the time you gave up possession of the car. If an eventual owner of the car discovers that the mileage has been altered he may sue everyone who ever owned the vehicle.; I would therefore suggest that you now execute an odometer disclosur statement indicating what the mileage was on the car at the time you turned it over to Mosher. I have enclosed the odometer disclosure regulation promulgated pursuant to the Act which contains a sample disclosure form. You may want to state somewhere on the document the reasons for your not having provided the statement at the time you sold your car. You can then send the document to the dealer by certified mail and retain your receipt as evidence that he received it. You may also find it a good idea to retain a copy of the odometer disclosure you complete.; Mosher Motor Sales is in violation of the law if it does not provid you with an odometer disclosure statement for the vehicle you purchased. A letter will be sent from this office informing the dealership of its noncompliance. You should demand that you be given a statement that conforms to the one required by law since it will serve as protection for you should that vehicle's mileage every (sic) be questioned.; Based upon the information you have provided it appears that Moshe Motor Sales may be violating the Federal odometer law. If you question the accuracy of the mileage currently indicated on the odometer of the car you purchased from them there are several means by which you may be able to establish that there has been an alteration. First, you may be able to obtain copies of prior odometer disclosure statements that certify the mileage on the vehicle at various points in the past. If these statements are unavailable, you may want to question prior owners of the vehicle as to what they recall the mileage being when they gave up possession. Your State Department of Motor Vehicles should be able to tell you how to trace back the chain of title. Some States record the mileage on vehicles at the time they are inspected and others enter mileage directly on the title document which is often filed with the State. These would be possible leads to finding out whether the mileage is accurate. Finally, an experienced mechanic may be able to determine if an odometer has been disconnected or altered.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authorit under the Cost Savings Act to conduct investigations to determine if there has been a violation of the odometer provisions. For this reason, we must rely on private individuals such as yourselves to notify us of violations. We will alert Mosher to the fact that we have received a compliant concerning them and inform them of the penalties for noncompliance.; Thank you very much for your letter. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2431OpenMr. R. M. Furman, NVT America, Inc., P.O. Box 6249, Anaheim, CA 92806; Mr. R. M. Furman NVT America Inc. P.O. Box 6249 Anaheim CA 92806; Dear Mr. Furman: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1976, in which yo pose several questions concerning which of three companies participating in the construction of a motor vehicle would be considered the manufacturer for purposes of 49 CFR Part 566 and which would be responsible, therefore, for meeting the safety standards described in 49 CFR Part 571.; The term 'manufacturer' is defined in section 102(5) of the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' Therefore, the company that assembles a vehicle is considered the manufacturer regardless of the name under which the vehicle is marketed. This interpretation is not affected by which company owns the engineering rights or trademark to the vehicle. A controlling corporation, however, may assume responsibility for conformity with the standards and may substitute its name for the name of its assembling subsidiary.; Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*, requires the manufacturer, a defined above, to submit identifying information and a description of the items it produces. You should further note that 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification* requires the same manufacturer to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards.; I trust this fully responds to your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0119OpenMr. John F. Dando, Chief Engineer, FWD Corporation, Clintonville, WI 54929; Mr. John F. Dando Chief Engineer FWD Corporation Clintonville WI 54929; Dear Mr. Dando: Thank you for your letter of October 4, 1968, in which you inquire about the acceptability of affixing a 'paper type nameplate' to the cab door glass of partially completed chassis-cab trucks.; A assume that you are referring to the requirement for certification o conformity with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The Federal Highway Administration has recently issued a notice of proposed certification regulations, a copy of which is enclosed. While of course this proposal may be changed before it is issued as a final rule, it will give you an indication of the specific requirements that will probably be established within the next few months.; With specific reference to your questions, the proposed regulations d specify in S. 275.5 that a label be affixed to a window of a chassis-cab. Not material is specified, so paper or similar materials will be satisfactory under this proposal. You will note that the proposed requirements differs in several respects from the drawing that you submitted with your letter. As least twelve-point type is require, which has capital letters of approximately 1/8 inch, the place of manufacture must be specified, and the statement restricting use most conform substantially with item (c) of that section.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations.; |
|
ID: aiam2124OpenInterps. File, Part 575.104; Interps. File Part 575.104; Subject: Telephone call from Patrick Raher, Esq. of Hogan & Hartson Esqs., representing Mercedes-Benz, on September 15, 1975; The subject telephone call was referred to me by Mark Schwimmer. explained to the caller the status of the UTQGS litigation, the briefing schedule, and the meaning of the stay order. He stated that Mark Schwimmer had read to him the text of Judge Weick's stay order.; The caller's questions and my responses were essentially the same a those covered in my August 27, 1975 memorandum in reference to telephone calls from Yokohama Tire Company and Transportation, Inc.; From: Allan Kam, Attorney |
|
ID: aiam4859OpenMr. Rick Weisbrod Vice President Marketing Independent Mobility Systems, Inc. 4100 West Piedras Street Farmington, New Mexico 87401; Mr. Rick Weisbrod Vice President Marketing Independent Mobility Systems Inc. 4100 West Piedras Street Farmington New Mexico 87401; "Dear Mr. Weisbrod: This responds to your letter of March 5, 199 concerning the requirements of Standard No. 301. According to your letter and information provided in a telephone conversation with John Rigby of this office on March 7, 1991, your company uses the Chrysler mini-van as a base vehicle for modification for use by drivers or passengers in wheelchairs. This modification is normally performed before the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer. However, the modification is sometimes performed after sale of the vehicle to a consumer. During the modification, the position of the fuel tank is altered by moving it behind the rear axle, the fuel filler tube is modified to reach the new location, and new structure is added to the rear of the vehicle. To ensure compliance with Standard No. 301, your company had front, rear, and side impact tests performed on a modified vehicle. You believe that this crash testing is appropriate, but have been told by 'various entities' that no such testing is required. Below I will explain the requirements applicable (1) when your company modifies a vehicle before the first sale to a consumer and (2) when your company modifies a vehicle after its sale to a consumer. As you know, a manufacturer of new motor vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Under the NHTSA regulation on certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered an 'alterer,' if the modifications involve more than the addition, substitution, or removal of 'readily attachable' components. An alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). When your company modifies a vehicle by relocating the fuel tank and making the other changes listed above before first sale to a consumer, it would be considered an alterer. Your company, therefore, would have to certify that every vehicle it alters complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, including Standard No. 301. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not expressly require alterers and manufacturers to conduct testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in the safety standards. Instead, the Safety Act requires alterers and manufacturers to exercise 'due care' in certifying that a vehicle complies with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the alterer or manufacturer, in the first instance, to determine how he or she will establish that due care was exercised in making the certification. NHTSA itself must precisely follow the crash test procedures in Standard No. 301 when the agency conducts its compliance testing. Manufacturers or alterers may establish due care by conducting crash testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Standard No. 301. Alternatively, manufacturers or alterers may use other procedures for assuring themselves that their vehicle complies with Standard No. 301, such as computer simulations or engineering analyses. Of course, the agency recognizes that conducting crash tests in accordance with the procedures in Standard No. 301 may be the simplest and most reliable way for an alterer to assure itself that the altered vehicles comply with the standard. When your company modifies a vehicle after that vehicle has been sold to a consumer, it would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides, in part, that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . . Thus, your company (or any other manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) making the modifications you described in your letter must ensure that those modifications do not 'render inoperative' the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. Again, the crash testing described in your letter would be a very effective way of ensuring that the modifications do not 'render inoperative' compliance with Standard No. 301. While your letter only concerned compliance with Standard No. 301, I would note that the modifications you discussed may affect compliance with other safety standards. Other safety standards that could be affected by the modifications include (1) Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, (2) Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (3) Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and (4) Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. I hope this information is useful to you. I also would like to express my appreciation for your company's interest in and commitment to motor vehicle safety. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel "; |
|
ID: aiam0549OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati Ohio 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letters of September 25 and October 19, 1972 In your letter of September 25, you ask whether persons performing intermediate manufacturing operations are subject to the Defect Reports regulations, specifically that part of the regulations which requires the quarterly reporting of production figures (573.5(b)). The defect reports regulations apply to all manufacturers of complete or incomplete motor vehicles. We consider intermediate manufacturers to be within the latter category, and the regulations therefore apply to them.; Your letter of October 19 asks whether a person who installs a fift wheel in a pickup truck is considered a 'remanufacturer.' Under existing regulations, we would not consider the installation of a fifth wheel on a pickup truck to be a significant enough alteration to constitute remanufacturing. Under the recently proposed amendment to the Certification Regulations regarding the certification of altered vehicles (37 F.R. 22800, October 25, 1972), whether such a person would be an alterer and required to affix a new label to the vehicle would depend upon whether the fifth-wheel is a readily attachable component.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2574OpenMr. S. L. Terry, Vice President, Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs, Chrysler Corporation, P.O. Box 1919, Detroit, MI 48231; Mr. S. L. Terry Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit MI 48231; Dear Mr. Terry: This responds to your November 29 and December 20, 1976, petitions fo rulemaking to amend the definition of 'unloaded vehicle weight.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grants your November 29 petition for rulemaking and denies your December 20 petition.; The NHTSA, in a letter of interpretation to the Jeep Corporation stated that 'unloaded vehicle weight' does not include the weight of accessories ordinarily removed when they are not in use. Your November 29 petition for rulemaking suggests that we formally incorporate this interpretation into the definition of 'unloaded vehicle weight' for purposes of clarity. The agency agrees that this change should be made. Accordingly, we intend to commence rulemaking in response to your petition.; Your December 20, 1976, petition amended your November 29, 1976 petition by suggesting that the agency permit barrier testing of specified vehicles at the lesser of the unloaded vehicle weight or 5,500 pounds. We have determined that this proposal would establish arbitrary weights for vehicles undergoing compliance testing which could result in vehicles being subjected to crash tests in a condition which is not representative of their actual on-road condition. Your suggested change in the definition could thus result in a reduction in the effectiveness of some motor vehicle safety standards. In Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, the Congress mandated that the agency not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard. Your proposal, if implemented, could violate that Congressional mandate since vehicles could be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight. Therefore, the recommendations advanced in your December 20 petition are denied to the extent that they differ from those originally proposed in your November 29 petition.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2827OpenMs. Lois M. Hebda, Mellon Bank, P.O. Box 360617M, Pittsburgh, PA 15230; Ms. Lois M. Hebda Mellon Bank P.O. Box 360617M Pittsburgh PA 15230; Dear Ms. Hebda: This is in response to your recent telephone conversation with Kath DeMeter of my staff concerning the retention of odometer disclosure statements. The question you raised was in what order the statements should be retained. The two methods you proposed using were alphabetically by the name of the individual or organization to which you transferred the vehicle. 49 CFR requires each dealer or distributor of a motor vehicle to retain the statements 'in an order that is appropriate to his business requirements and that permits systematic retrieval.'; Either method you propose would probably permit systematic retrieva and you may therefore select the method which best suits your business requirements.; Sincerely, John Womack, 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.