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 |
|---|---|
ID: aiam1229OpenSeymour Charles, M.D., Physicians for Automotive Safety, 50 Union Avenue, Irvington, NJ 07111; Seymour Charles M.D. Physicians for Automotive Safety 50 Union Avenue Irvington NJ 07111; Dear Mr.(sic) Charles: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1973, concerning children' car harnesses and car seats.; In response to your inquiry about the Auto-babe' car harness, it i our opinion that the harness is a Type III seat belt assembly under Standard No. 209 and we presently are investigating the product as an apparent noncompliance with the standard.; The next stage in the rulemaking on child restraints will be reache this fall with a notice of proposed rulemaking on dynamic test requirements. We will be interested to have your comments on this proposal when it is issued.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3214OpenMr. Aldo Fozzati, Fiat Motors of North America, Parklane Towers West, Suite 1210, Dearborn, MI 48126; Mr. Aldo Fozzati Fiat Motors of North America Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn MI 48126; Dear Mr. Fozzati: This is in response to your letter of November 15, 1979, requestin that paragraph S8.1.9 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, be corrected to change the phrase 'size 11EE shoe' to 'size 11E shoe.' I am sorry for the delay in this response.; Size '11EE' shoes are specified in the standard to allow eas application of the shoes to the test dummy's feet. If the feet of the dummy are of the absolute maximum width allowed by the standard, some size '11E' shoes are very difficult to apply. However, the agency does not believe that use of either '11E' or '11EE' shoes will cause a variation in test results. Therefore, a manufacturer should be safe in using either size. Mr. Radovich was incorrect in his statement that size '11EE' shoes are not available on the market. Size '11EE' shoes can be obtained from the Freeman Shoe Company, the Bostonian Shoe Company and other companies by special order.; For the reason stated above, we do not anticipate amending the standar to specify that shoe size should be '11E'. However, if you have any data or other information indicating that test results can vary between use of size '11E' or size '11EE' shoes, we would certainly appreciate seeing the data.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1383OpenMr. H. W. Gerth, Assistant Vice President, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. H. W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: Subject:>>>Recall Campaign - Mercedes-Benz Model 450SE/SEL wit Possible Incorrect Routing of the Brake Line<<<; The letter which you have sent to first purchasers does not meet th requirements of 49 CFR Part 577, 'Defect Notification,' (copy enclosed) in the following respects. Section 577.4(b) requires a specific statement to be made, concluded with the identifying criteria of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment found to contain the defect. In this case, therefore, the sentence should read substantially as follows: 'Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the model 450 SE and 450 SEL Mercedes-Benz automobile.' Your letter also fails to evaluate the risk to traffic safety related to the defect in accordance with section 577.4(d). Finally, your letter does not estimate the day that parts will be supplied to dealers (577.4(e)(1)(ii)). If parts are presently available the letter should so state.; It is necessary for you to revise this letter as we have indicated an to provide this office and the owners who have not already responded to this campaign with a copy of the revised letter.; Failure to comply with this regulation can result in the imposition o civil penalties and injunctive sanctions.; If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. James Murra or Marx Elliott of this office (202) 426- 2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2956OpenClarence W. Woody, Maryland Department of Transportation, 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E., Glen Burnie, MD 21062; Clarence W. Woody Maryland Department of Transportation 6601 Ritchie Highway N.E. Glen Burnie MD 21062; Dear Mr. Woody: This is in response to your letter of January 19, 1978, asking whethe the odometer statement is required for transfers between dealers which take place prior to the sale of a vehicle to an individual. The answer is no. Exemption 580.5(b) (49 CFR S 580.5(b)) states; >>>A transferor of a new vehicle prior to its first transfer fo purposes other than resale need not disclose the vehicle's odometer mileage.<<<; This statement is intended to exclude all transfers of new vehicle prior to the first sale to a customer. For example, when the manufacturer transfers the vehicle to a dealer, no statement needs to be issued because the transfer is for resale purposes. If that dealer makes a trade with another dealer, no disclosure statement needs to be issued because this transfer is also for resale purposes. The second dealer is purchasing the vehicle merely to resell it. If that dealer then sells the vehicle to a customer, private or commercial, who is going to use that vehicle for some purpose other than reselling it immediately, then a disclosure statement needs to be issued. This transfer is the first transfer of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale. Beginning with this first transfer to a customer, each transfer of the vehicle from then on must be accompanied by a disclosure statement.; The Federal law does not, however, prohibit the State from requirin such disclosures. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration supports all affirmative steps which the States take with regard to combating odometer misrepresentation.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1679OpenMr. Kenneth Winiarski, Field Enterprises Education Corp., Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago, IL 60654; Mr. Kenneth Winiarski Field Enterprises Education Corp. Merchandise Mart Plaza Chicago IL 60654; Dear Mr. Winiarski: Your letter of October 8, 1974, to Mr. Bobby Boaz has been forwarded t this office for reply. You appear to be interested in obtaining some general statements regarding the applicability of motor vehicle safety standards to different types of motor vehicles.; We attempt to apply each Federal motor vehicle safety standard to a wide a range of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment as is reasonable, practicable and appropriate. It is not entirely accurate, however, to say that the standards apply to the performance of equipment which vehicles are required to have. The standards are divided conceptually into three types: those which apply to new vehicles, those which apply to motor vehicle equipment (*e.g.* tires, child seats, etc.) and those which apply to both vehicles and equipment. In the case of a standard which applies to vehicles, the tests employed by the standard can take into account vehicle structure, weight, and design. In other words it is the method by which equipment is integrated into a vehicle that is important, rather than the performance of the equipment taken alone.; Standards which apply to vehicles specify the particular vehicle type to which they apply. Most early vehicle standards applied only to passenger cars. Since that time we have attempted to expand the applicability of some of these standards to other vehicle types. In each case, as I indicated above, a standard must be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of vehicle to which it is applied. In some cases, this is a matter of technology as you suggest. In others, however, the question may be one of safety need. For example, some standards do not apply to trailers (*e.g.*, Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of interior materials') or to equipment for use in trailers (No. 205, 'Glazing materials') because State laws prohibit people from riding in trailers. In this regard standards can also be directed at particular vehicle types to alleviate safety problems particular to them. A good example of this is Standard No. 217, 'Bus window retention and release.'; Your statements regarding seat belts and the applicability of Standard No. 208, 209, and 210 are not correct. While these requirements are somewhat complex, I believe an appropriate summary would be that seat belts and anchorages are required at all permanent seating positions including lateral or rearward positions, in all motor vehicles except trailers, motorcycles, and the passenger seats in buses.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4181OpenMr. Harry H. Kazakian, President, Corleone International Traders, Inc., P.O. Box 3417, Los Angeles, CA 90028; Mr. Harry H. Kazakian President Corleone International Traders Inc. P.O. Box 3417 Los Angeles CA 90028; Dear Mr. Kazakian: This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1986, to which wa attached a 'Magic Eyes Brake Light'. This device consists of two small lamps whose primary functions are to flash automatically 'upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use'. The purpose of the device is to reduce rear end collisions. The artwork on the package shows the lamps mounted at the base of the rear window on either side of the vehicle's vertical centerline. You asked that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking to require the device as original equipment or for the aftermarket.; I regret that we have decided to deny your petition that the device b required as original equipment. The agency's research has shown that the most effective device for reducing rear end collisions is the single center high-mounted stop lamp, and the agency now requires that device to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars. You have presented no facts that demonstrate that an amendment of the nature you have requested is necessary. Although the agency has specified no requirements for aftermarket supplementary stop lamps (other than those that replace original equipment), on the basis of the agency's research, we believe that aftermarket equipment should meet as closely as possible the specifications for original equipment. Therefore, we are also denying your petition for aftermarket equipment.; We would like to advise you that there are no Federal restrictions o the importation and sale of 'Magic Eyes'. However, any State may impose its own restrictions on the use of this lamp on roads within its borders, and you should consult these laws before selling the device.; As a final note, the copy for model JA 201 on the package states 'T comply with latest United States' regulations, this single lamp lights on automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use'. Please delete the reference to United States regulations on your packages. The single lamp required by the United States is steady burning and has but one function, to indicate application of the brake pedal. It cannot be combined with any other light or device. In comparison, your lamp has two functions, and appears to flash in each.; As an accessory item of motor vehicle equipment, your lamp is subjec to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that if a safety related defect occurs in th (sic) lamp, the manufacturer or importer is obligated to inform dealers, distributors and purchasers to repair, repurchase, or replace the item. We are returning your device with this letter.; Sincerely, Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking |
|
ID: aiam3644OpenMr. Yang Ru-tang, General Manager, China United Trading Corp., Ltd, Shanghai Division, One Penn Plaza, Suite 1915, 250 W. 34th Street, New York, NY 10119; Mr. Yang Ru-tang General Manager China United Trading Corp. Ltd Shanghai Division One Penn Plaza Suite 1915 250 W. 34th Street New York NY 10119; Dear Mr. Yang: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements fo importing tires into this country from China. I have enclosed a copy of a 1981 letter I sent to Mr. Deng Shin- Wen, the chief engineer of the Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant. That letter generally explains the requirements which must be met in order to import tires into this country. While that letter answers many of your questions. I will repeat the requirements to ensure that you understand them, and respond to those questions not covered in the previous letter.; To receive a DOT code mark, a tire manufacturer must complete th enclosed application form and return it to the address shown on the form. A separate application must be filed for each manufacturing plant, and a separate code mark will be assigned to each plant.; Before a code mark is assigned, the tire manufacturer must designate a agent for the service of process, according to the requirements of 49 CFR S 551.45 (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the designation of agent must meet the following six criteria:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear his name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent, the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. When this agency has received a completed application for a code mark and a valid designation of an agent, a code mark will be assigned to the manufacturer promptly, usually within two weeks. You should note that the code mark is sent to the manufacturer at the mailing or main office address shown on the application, and not to the designated agent. The DOT code mark assigned to the manufacturer remains valid until such time as the manufacturer notifies this agency that it is no longer using that code mark.; No testing of the tires is done by this agency before assigning the DO code mark. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which the manufacturer is required to deliver tires to be certified to the governmental entity for approval. Instead, in the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109) if they are passenger car tires or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR s 571.119) if the tires are for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all, we only require that the Certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable standards. Certainly, we recommend that a manufacturer selling tires in the United States test those tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standards, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters 'DOT' on one sidewall of each certified tire.; For purposes of enforcement this agency conducts spot checks of tire after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken.; If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with th applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires which fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:; 1. repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or (2) replace the tires with an identical or reasonably equivalent tir which does not have the defect or noncompliance.; Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bea the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy.; With respect to the markings required on the sidewall of the tires those markings and their required size and location are set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and S6.5 of Standard No. 119 for tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part Part (sic) 574 (copy enclosed) also sets forth marking requirements for all types of tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject or need furthe information, please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4928OpenMr. Michael E. Kastner Director of Government Relations National Truck Equipment Association 1350 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005-4797; Mr. Michael E. Kastner Director of Government Relations National Truck Equipment Association 1350 New York Avenue NW Suite 800 Washington DC 20005-4797; "Dear Mr. Kastner: This responds to your letter of September 4, 1991 asking whether an altered vehicle label must be added under the following circumstances: An NTEA member receives a truck which is certified as a completed vehicle. This vehicle has not yet been titled or registered for use in any state. The NTEA member then installs a piece of equipment. This piece of equipment would not be considered readily attachable, nor would this equipment modify the completed vehicle's weight ratings. Both the completed truck manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer have stated that installation of this equipment would not affect compliance with any federal motor vehicle safety standard. If the modification you describe is performed prior to the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the answer to your question is yes. A person is considered an alterer if (1) they alter the vehicle in any manner 'other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations,' or (2) they alter 'the vehicle is such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid.' Since the conditions you describe involve equipment which is not readily attachable, the NTEA member would be considered an alterer. If considered an alterer, the NTEA member would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed. If the modification you describe is performed after the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the NTEA member would not be considered an alterer and an alteration label would not have to be attached. Under these conditions, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with applicable safety standards is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In general, this 'render inoperative' provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that any additional equipment installed in a vehicle would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on the vehicle with applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2405OpenMr. Sicks, Fachnormenausschuss Kraftfahrzeuge - FAKRA, D-6000 Frankfurt (Main) 17 - Westendstrasse 61, Postfach 1742 49; Mr. Sicks Fachnormenausschuss Kraftfahrzeuge - FAKRA D-6000 Frankfurt (Main) 17 - Westendstrasse 61 Postfach 1742 49; Dear Mr. Sicks: This is in response to your letter of March 31, 1975, in which yo recommend a modification of the testing procedures pursuant to Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Your modification would require the presence of support wires in all tests. After consideration of the recently-compiled test data on the use of support wires in the testing procedures, the NHTSA has decided that modification of the standard should be considered along the lines you suggest.; The NHTSA has interpreted Standard No. 302 to permit the use of suppor wires when any bending of the tested material occurred. At the time of that interpretation, it was believed that support wires would not influence the test results. More recent testing by the agency indicates that the use of support wires does significantly affect burn rates. For this reason, the agency is considering various possibilities in addition to the one you suggest.; Thank you for sending us a copy of your Draft International Standard We appreciate your concern in this matter.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0438OpenMr. G. Boschetti, Director, Automobiles, Peugeot, 75, Avenue de la Grande-Armee, Paris 16e, France; Mr. G. Boschetti Director Automobiles Peugeot 75 Avenue de la Grande-Armee Paris 16e France; Dear Mr. Boschetti: We appreciate the opportunity to further discuss the questions yo raised during our visit of June 9 and 10. I will try to answer each question as fully as possible.; 1. It would be unfortunate if the effect of our standards on domesti passenger car production in Europe is to raise costs to the point where significant numbers of people are forced to rely on cheaper and more dangerous vehicles such as motor driven cycles. However, we do not think this result likely in the light of the continuing demand for inexpensive passengers cars and in the absence of legislation by the European nations to compel adoption of the costlier safety features.; 2. We are aware of the concern of foreign manufacturers with th effects of the standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will attempt to be as flexible as possible, consistent with its mandate to insure the safety of vehicles sold in the United States. The discretion allowed the agency to exempt vehicles from a standard is a matter that Congress will have to decide. At the present time, the exemption authority given the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by the 1966 Act has expired, and we are therefore unable to agree to any exemptions unless Congress chooses to recreate the exemption authority in some form.; 3. In the development of standards, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration attempts to evaluate their effects on foreign as well as domestic manufacturers. As you are aware, it is sometimes not possible to reconcile all points of view on a standard, but we would urge you to make every effort to set forth your position on proposed rules during the comment period.; 4,5. Your comments on the proper height for bumpers and the problem o the license plate location have been considered in the context of the rulemaking on Standard No. 215. The amendment issued on June 22, 1971, should serve to lessen the height problem to some degree, and on the basis of present data we regard the height thereby established as reasonable for the overall vehicle population. The shape of the license plate itself is determined by the individual states and is not within our authority.; 6. The crash characteristics which you suggest for a vehicle's fron end seem reasonable, but because they fall beyond the scope of the present rulemaking on Standard No. 215, any consideration of them will have to be deferred. Although we realize that the front seats can supplement the side structure of a car in a side impact, the question as to whether the seats should be retained was considered in the development of the final version of Standard No. 214, and it was determined at that time that the standard would provide a more reliable measure of side strength if the tests were conducted with the seats removed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is still of that opinion, although it would consider any additional information presented in support of a petition to amend the standard to allow retention of the seats.; 7. On the subject of prospective standards, the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration is currently preparing a new version of the program plan for motor vehicle safety standards. The plan is intended to map the course of rulemaking for the next several years, and should serve to answer most of your questions on timing. We expect to announce the new plan in the very near future.; I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. If not, or i additional questions arise, do not hesitate to ask us.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator |
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.