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: aiam3980OpenMr. Richard H. Lucki, U.S. Factory Representative, PEUGEOT, U.S. Technical Research Company, 33 Garland Way, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Richard H. Lucki U.S. Factory Representative PEUGEOT U.S. Technical Research Company 33 Garland Way Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Lucki: This responds to your letter of March 7, 1985, concerning Standard No 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. I regret the delay in our response. You noted that sections S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) of the standard require a seat belt warning system that conforms to S7.3 of the standard to be installed at each front outboard seating position of automatic restraint-equipped cars that have manual belts also at those positions. You pointed out that S7.3, however, only sets requirements for a warning system for the driver's seating position. You asked whether the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) can be met by providing a warning system conforming to S7.3 at only the driver's seating position. The answer is that those requirements can be met by a warning system for the driver only.; In December 1974 (39 FR 42692), the agency amended Standard No. 208 t establish new safety belt warning system requirements for vehicles manufactured after February 24, 1975. As discussed in the preamble, the agency decided against requiring a warning system at both the driver's seating position and the right front passenger's position. Instead, the agency adopted a requirement in S7.3(a) for a warning system at only the driver's seating position. (In July 1977 (42 FR 34299), the agency renumbered S7.3(a) to become the current S7.3).; In July 1976 (41 FR 29715), the agency proposed language concerning th safety belt warning system in automatic restraint-equipped cars. The proposed language was subsequently adopted, on July 5, 1977 (49 FR 34299), in S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The agency explained in the preamble of the July 1976 notice that the proposed safety belt warning system was to parallel the existing requirements for passenger cars. Thus, the intent was to require a warning system for only the driver's position. Requiring a warning system for the driver's position only is also consistent with the separate warning system requirement set in S4.5.3.3(b) for automatic belts. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a warning system only for the driver's position.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2387OpenMr. W. M. Albergotti, Manager, Gibbes Machinery Co., Assembly-Blossom-Park & Wheat Streets, P.O. Box 648, Columbia, SC 29202; Mr. W. M. Albergotti Manager Gibbes Machinery Co. Assembly-Blossom-Park & Wheat Streets P.O. Box 648 Columbia SC 29202; Dear Mr. Albergotti: This responds to your August 3, 1976, request for guidance i establishing a basis for certification to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, in the case of a truck whose frame and wheelbase is increased by 36 inches. You stated that, in this case, you will not complete the vehicle, but you ask what your responsibilities would be if you completed the vehicle with a used body that was provided by a dealer or a private party.; Because you are modifying an incomplete vehicle by extension of th frame and wheelbase but not completing it, you are considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of certification (49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages). Under Part 568, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer is required to pass along the incomplete vehicle document that accompanies the chassis-cab, and to furnish an addendum to it if the validity of the statements in the document has been affected by modifications you made.; Because you would move the rear axles and thereby affect the air brak system, you may need to furnish an addendum to indicate what statements in the document concerning Standard No. 121 should be changed. Assuming, for example, that the General Motors' document states that the vehicle conforms to the standard as long as no changes are made and the center of gravity location is limited, you must determine whether the changes you made have affected the validity of this statement. If the person who completes the vehicle could continue to observe the limitations established by General Motors in the incomplete vehicle document and produce a conforming vehicle, no addendum would be necessary. If, on the other hand, your modifications require new directions to the final stage manufacturer, an addendum must be added.; Although you asked only about compliance with Standard No. 121, i should be noted that a change in the vehicle's wheelbase could also affect compliance with other standards and could require a modification of the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating and Gross Axle Weight Ratings of the vehicle.; If you complete a vehicle for a dealer or an owner, you would b considered the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore be required to certify its conformity with all applicable standards. This requirement is set forth in S 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403). The Act requires that manufacturers exercise 'due care' to ensure that their products conform to the standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the availability of test equipment, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.; As a general response to your question, if testing facilities are no available to an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, or the cost of his testing a vehicle directly to the requirements of Standard No. 121 is prohibitive, such a company should develop an alternative method of determining that his alterations do not take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. These methods might include testing of typical installations by independent contractors working with associations of companies such as the Truck Body Equipment Association, engineering calculations by yourself or your brake and axle suppliers, or copying of installations that have been approved by chassis manufacturers.; With regard to the use of a used body, the NHTSA considers the mountin of a used body on a new chassis to be the manufacture of a new vehicle. Thus, the completed vehicle must be certified to all applicable standards, including Standard No. 121. In order to do this, you must know the center of gravity of the loaded body in order to determine whether it would, when mounted, exceed the limitations that appear in the incomplete vehicle document on the subject on center-of-gravity height. In the absence of any data, it would seem that a calculation of the center of gravity could be made, provided that due care is exercised.; Thank you for your responsible approach to meeting the requirements o the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Your letter to the NHTSA is an indication of your diligence in meeting your responsibility to exercise due care.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5442OpenMary B. Falls, Esq. Sherrard & Roe 424 Church Street, Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37219; Mary B. Falls Esq. Sherrard & Roe 424 Church Street Suite 2000 Nashville TN 37219; "Dear Ms. Falls: This responds to your request for an interpretation o whether, in replacing stolen vehicle identification number (VIN) plates as prescribed by Tennessee state law, your client, Nissan, would conform to this agency's requirements concerning VINs. The answer is Nissan would not violate our requirements when it replaces the stolen 'VIN plate.' However, there may be other aspects of replacing stolen VIN plates that are under the U.S. Department of Justice's law enforcement jurisdiction. By way of background, Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements, requires manufacturers to assign a VIN to each motor vehicle, to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. S4.5 of the standard specifies that VINs shall appear on a permanent part of the vehicle or on a separate label or plate, called the 'VIN plate.' S4.6 requires the VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR to be included in the passenger compartment, and manufacturers typically meet S4.6 by placing the VIN plate on the vehicle's dashboard. Your letter explained that Nissan manufactures cars and light trucks in Tennessee, and leases these vehicles. Sometimes, the VIN plate in the passenger compartment is stolen from the leased vehicle, but the vehicle is otherwise not tampered with. You stated that: Section 55-5111 of Tennessee Code Annotated provides that it is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to buy, sell, offer for sale, or possess a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial, engine, or transmission number or other distinguishing number or identification mark or number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. In addition, 55-5-112 provides that the owner of an original engine, serial, engine, or transmission, or 'other number or mark' may restore such number or mark pursuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety. You asked whether Nissan, the vehicle owner, would be 'in full compliance' with NHTSA's regulations if Nissan replaced stolen VIN plates in accordance with Tennessee law. In response to your question, we note that Standard No. 115 applies only to new motor vehicles. In the event a VIN plate is stolen from a leased (i.e., used) motor vehicle, NHTSA has no authority to require that any party replace the VIN plate. Thus, under NHTSA's regulations, if the VIN plate is stolen from a used vehicle, Nissan, the owner, may use its discretion whether to replace the VIN plate. However, please note that there could be other implications under Federal law about replacing stolen VIN plates. The U.S. Department of Justice has jurisdiction over stolen VIN plates as a law enforcement matter. Therefore, I suggest that you consult with the Justice Department about possible Federal law enforcement implications of replacing the stolen VIN plates. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0640OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1972, concerning th certification of pickup trucks that are modified while still in the hands of a dealer. You describe a situation in which the dealer removes the pickup body and sends the vehicle to a final-stage manufacturer for fitting with a service body.; We would consider modifications of the type you describe to b manufacturing under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). Because a completed vehicle is involved regulations governing Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (Part 568) do not apply.; One who remanufactures a completed vehicle assumes the responsibilit of any manufacturer of completed vehicles. The extent to which he may safely rely on the original GVWR, GAWR, and statement of conformity depends on what he has done to alter the vehicle. He is required to certify the vehicle by affixing his own label, and must take into account the effects of any modification he makes.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1952OpenMr. Walter Potoroka, General Counsel, Holley Carburetor Division, P. O. Box 749, Warren MI 48090; Mr. Walter Potoroka General Counsel Holley Carburetor Division P. O. Box 749 Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Potoroka: This is in reference to your defect notification and remedy campaig involving some chrome reverse wheels which may have insufficient welds between the center disc and the rim. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) identification number *75E-022* has been assigned to this campaign. Please refer to that number in any future correspondence concerning this campaign.; The letter which you have submitted as the letter to be sent to retai purchasers of the subject wheels does not meet the requirement of Part 577(49 CFR) as well as the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. Part 577, the Defect Notification regulation, is presently still in effect except for those sections which conflict with the 1974 amendment. Your notification letter therefore should have had the opening statements specified by Part 577.4(a) and (b).; The letter also does not notify owners that they may inform th Secretary of Transportation if they are unable to receive remedy without charge, as required by Section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment. The fact that your company has set up a procedure intended to insure that all owners will receive remedy without charge does not eliminate that requirement. This office knows of numerous instances where an individual owner of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment was not able to have a defect corrected. This may be due to a parts' supply problem, an uncooperative dealer, or some other problem which may not be known to the manufacturer. In any event, NHTSA does not have the authority to delete a requirement imposed by an act of Congress and must therefore insist that all manufacturers respond to Section 153(a)(6) in their owner notification letters. To comply, owners may be told that they may write to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590.; Although the letter does imply that dealers are prepared to remedy th defect, it does not give the earliest date on which the defect will be remedied without charge, as required by Section 153(a)(5) of the 1974 amendment.; It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification lette to conform with Part 577, as well as Section 153 of the 1974 amendment. A copy of the revised letter should be sent to all owners who have not yet had their wheels inspected or replaced, and also to this office. If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. James Murray or W. Reinhart of this office at (202) 426-2840. A copy of Part 577 is enclosed.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5012OpenThe Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-2301; The Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510-2301; "Dear Senator Durenberger: Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1992 concerning a product developed by your constituent, McNaughton Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The product is a device to prevent a child from opening the buckle of a safety belt without adult assistance. You requested information on any regulations that pertain to this product. The agency has received inquiries about similar products in the past. While we understand parents' concerns that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about these types of products because they could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. I am enclosing an August 6, 1986, letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Ms. Ann Boriskie. As this letter explains, your constituent's product could not be installed by a commercial entity without violating Federal law. In addition, installation of your constituent's product by any person would be inconsistent with this agency's policy to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. You also asked for information on how McNaughton Incorporated could become involved in the national safety belt campaign. The Agency is currently working with a variety of public and private sector organizations to increase safety belt use to 70 percent by the end of 1992. The strategy focuses on increased law enforcement efforts coupled with aggressive community-based public information. There are many ways McNaughton can support these efforts. They can consider developing and implementing an in-house safety belt education program targeting their employees or applying for the 70 percent Honor Roll Program. They might be interested in supporting community awareness initiatives that promote the campaign, including the posting of billboards and the inclusion of safety belt messages in their on-going advertising. An expanded list of ideas is attached. If McNaughton Incorporated is interested in additional campaign information, they can contact Susan Gorcowski, Office of Occupant Protection, (202) 366- 2683. I appreciate your interest in the safety of motor vehicles and hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0210OpenMr. Eddie E. Barnes, 7859 Tegner Road, Hilmar, CA 95324; Mr. Eddie E. Barnes 7859 Tegner Road Hilmar CA 95324; Dear Mr. Barnes: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the number of safety belt in your 1969 Chevrolet nine-passenger station wagon.; The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires tha seat belt assemblies be installed in each *forward-facing* designated seating position in passenger cars. The standard does not apply to side-facing or rear-facing seats. The manufacturer is not required to install safety belts for such seats, however, in the interest of safety, most manufacturers usually install lap belts for the seating positions most commonly used.; A Notice of Proposed Rule Making was issued on September 15, 1969 which would extend the applicability of Standard No. 208 to apply also to side-facing and rear-facing seats. The comments of those who responded to the Notice have been analyzed and the final rule is now being developed.; I am enclosing a copy of our present Standard No. 208 and a copy of th Notice of Proposed Rule Making for your reference.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Vehicle Structures Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4253OpenMr. Donald J. Audia, 11843 Braesview No. 2412, San Antonio, TX 78213; Mr. Donald J. Audia 11843 Braesview No. 2412 San Antonio TX 78213; Dear Mr. Audia: This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Taylor Vinso of this Office asking about the permissibility of manufacturing an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp utilizing the colors yellow and orange, in addition to red, to signify 'the varying stages of a stopping car.'; Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflectiv Devices, and Associated Equipment* only the color red is permitted for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps, and for those aftermarket lamps manufactured to replace them. These lamps are generally found on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. Your planned device could not be manufactured and sold for this segment of the aftermarket since it does not conform to Standard No. 108. Further, a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business could not legally remove an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp and install your device. However, there is no Federal restriction on sale and installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. The device would then be subject to the laws of any State where it would be sold or used. We regret that we are unable to advise you on these laws.; If you have any further questions we would be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3596OpenMr. F. E. Bettridge, Board Chairman, Middlekauff, Inc., 1615 Ketcham Avenue, Toledo, OH 43608; Mr. F. E. Bettridge Board Chairman Middlekauff Inc. 1615 Ketcham Avenue Toledo OH 43608; Dear Mr. Bettridge: This is in reply to your petition of July 16, 1982, for a temporar exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*.; You have told us that 'as a seller and installer of truck bodies, w are frequently called upon to install a body on an incomplete vehicle furnished to us by a major manufacturer through his dealer.' Our regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) requires the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle to furnish, with the vehicle, statements with respect to each of the standards which inform the final stage manufacturer of the vehicle's compliance status. With respect to Standard No. 301, each manufacturer should provide you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform or, alternatively, a statement that the vehicle when completed will conform if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle.; These statements afford a basis for your certification of complianc with Standard No. 301 without the necessity of testing. We would like to know which of these statements have been provided and why you may believe your manufacturing operations are such that you could not certify compliance with Standard No. 301.; We would also like to make clear that there is no legal requiremen that you crash test a $10,000 vehicle in order to demonstrate compliance. Certification may be based upon computer simulation, mathematical calculation, or engineering studies. Upon reflection you may decide that you have an adequate basis for certification with Standard No. 301.; Until we hear further from you, we shall hold your petition i abeyance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1051OpenMr. R. W. Lillie, 3345 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 204, Los Angeles, CA 90010; Mr. R. W. Lillie 3345 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 204 Los Angeles CA 90010; Dear Mr. Lillie: Thank you for your letter of January 30, 1973, and our sincer apologies for the delay in responding to your letter.; There are no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable t plastic fuel tanks. Standard No. 301, which includes the fuel tank in the crash performance requirements of the vehicle, makes no reference to the construction or design details of the fuel tank. A booklet briefly describing the issued standards is enclosed.; The Department of Transportation does not routinely receive and tes fuel tanks of the various manufacturers, however, the Department keeps abreast of technical advancements of these companies through technical society meetings and trade journals. it has been brought to our attention that Dow Chemical Company has done considerable work with high density polyethylene fuel tanks and offers an internal treatment of these tanks which is claimed to reduce considerably the permeation of gasoline through the walls. Further information may be obtained from the following source:; >>>Dow Chemical U.S.A., Plastics Department, Midland, Michigan 48640<<< Standard No. 116 is applicable to Hydraulic Brake Fluids and i included in the consolidated edition of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, as per the enclosed order form.; The physical characteristics and labeling requirements of brake fluids including silicones, are included in this standard, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Your inquiry concerning the use of silicones in automobiles can best be answered by the Original Equipment Manufacturers or the automotive companies. The interest of the Department in materials is primarily performance rather than design considerations, for example, an elastomeric material could be silicone, neoprene, or other elastomer, as long as the standards are complied with.; The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has issued standards that ar applicable to commercial vehicles engaged in interstate commerce, and some of those standards apply to fuel tanks. A portion of these regulations that pertains to fuel tanks is also enclosed for your information, along with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making that concerns plastic fuel tanks (F.R., Vol. 36, No. 178, September 14, 1971). Additional information is available from the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
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.