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: aiam3205OpenMr. F. Michael Petler, Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 13767 Freeway Drive, Santa Fe Springs, California 90670; Mr. F. Michael Petler Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd. 13767 Freeway Drive Santa Fe Springs California 90670; Dear Mr. Petler: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1980, asking whethe a partial vehicle identification number (VIN) may be stamped into the frame of the Suzuki motorcycles under the certification label.; The answer is yes. The use of identifying numbers other than the VIN i allowed if the numbers cannot be confused with the VIN. In the situation you described, the identification number would be hidden from view by the certification label. Since the label is required to be riveted or permanently affixed to the vehicle (Part 567 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulation), the hidden identifying number is not likely to become visible during the life of the vehicle. Therefore, there appears to be no chance that the number would be confused with the VIN.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1238OpenMr. Richard Hrejsa, 4531 Grove Avenue, Brewyn, IL 60402; Mr. Richard Hrejsa 4531 Grove Avenue Brewyn IL 60402; Dear Mr. Hrejsa: This is in response to your letter of June 4, 1973, requestin information on remedies for a transferor's failure to make an accurate odometer disclosure statement. I apologize for our delay in replying.; Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Publi Law 92-513, (1) prohibits the resetting or altering of an odometer to change the miles indicated on it, and (2) establishes a requirement that a transferor (seller) make a written odometer disclosure to his transferee (buyer) at the time of sale. These provisions of the law were in effect when you purchased your car in May 1973.; The two remedies for violations of the law are (1) a private civi action for $1,500 or treble damages by a subsequent purchaser of the car, and (2) a suit by the Untied States Attorney to restrain further violations of the Act. This second remedy is normally utilized only in the case of repeated violations.; If the dealer who sold you the car altered or reset the mileage afte January 18, 1973, you may have a civil action against him. Also, if it is as it appears in your letter, the dealer made a false and incomplete mileage disclosure to you after March 1, 1973, which may also make him civilly liable to you. His purchase of the car in October 1972 has no bearing on his disclosure obligations to you.; You may wish to consult with an attorney about your rights in thi matter. Enclosed are a copy of the Act and implementing regulations for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0583OpenMr. Robert M. Martin, Director of Central Services, City of Lynchburg, Box 60, Lynchburg, VA 24505; Mr. Robert M. Martin Director of Central Services City of Lynchburg Box 60 Lynchburg VA 24505; Dear Mr. Martin: This is in reply to your letters of December 20, 1971, and January 4 1972, concerning dump trucks recently purchased by the city of Lynchburg. You state that the trucks have a 24,000 GVW rating (rear axle 17,500 pounds, front axle 7,000 pounds), and were delivered with 8.25-20 tires, and ask whether there is a Federal requirement that restricts GVW rating according to tire size.; Beginning January 1, 1972, Federal regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568 have required all motor vehicle manufacturers to affix a label to their vehicles that contains both a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and a gross axle weight rating for each axle (GAWR). These ratings are to be established by the manufacturer based upon all vehicle systems including tires. The requirements apply to the manufacturer, however, and not to the purchaser, if the vehicle is completed when he receives it. Nor is the regulation designed to regulate vehicles-in-use, which are subject to State regulation, but it is possible that some States may use these figures as a basis of determining whether vehicles are overloaded.; With reference to your particular trucks, it appears that they wer manufactured before January 1, 1972, and the regulations are therefore not applicable to them. However, according to the 1971 Tire and Rim Association Yearbook, which sets recommended load and inflation pressures for all vehicle tires, the 8.25-20 10-ply tire has a recommended maximum load, for dual usage, of 3,550 pounds at 75 psi. Assuming 4 tires on the rear axle, this would be equal to a load rating of 14,200 pounds, lower than the 17,500 pounds at which the axle is rated. For single usage, the tire is rated at 4,050 pounds at 85 psi. Assuming 2 tires on the front axle, the maximum load for the axle would be 8,100 pounds, which, unlike the rear axle, is greater than the load rated for the axles.; A copy of our Certification regulations, which contain the requirement for GVWR and GAWR is enclosed for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0079OpenMr. L. P. Knipe, Vice President - Sales, Ultra, Inc., 101 West Fifth, Hutchinson, KS 67501; Mr. L. P. Knipe Vice President - Sales Ultra Inc. 101 West Fifth Hutchinson KS 67501; Dear Mr. Knipe: Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1968, concernin certification of the Ultra Van Motorhome as a multipurpose vehicle. An examination of the information submitted indicates that the Ultra Van Motorhome would properly be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle within the definition contained in Section 255.3(b) 23 CFR, Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 requires every manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to furnish certification of compliance with applicable standards. Details of certification were published as a Federal Register, Vol. 32, No. 215 on November 4, 1967. Your attention is invited to the enclosed copies of these documents and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; We trust we have been of assistance to you. Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2044OpenMr. Kenneth J. Mason, 1314 Spruce Street, Wausau, WI 54401; Mr. Kenneth J. Mason 1314 Spruce Street Wausau WI 54401; Dear Mr. Mason: We have received your letter of August 7, 1975, concerning the Unifor Tire Quality Grading Standards established by this agency. Although the formal comment period for the proposals on which this regulation is based ended April 23, 1975, we appreciate your support for the regulation as issued. A copy of your letter has been placed in our public files.; Thank you for expressing your interest. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4893OpenMr. Gerald Farr, P. Eng. Senior Compliance Engineer Compliance Engineering and Vehicle Testing Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate Transport Canada (ASFAAA) Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1A ON5; Mr. Gerald Farr P. Eng. Senior Compliance Engineer Compliance Engineering and Vehicle Testing Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate Transport Canada (ASFAAA) Ottawa Ontario CANADA K1A ON5; Dear Mr. Farr: This responds to your letter of June 19, 1991 requesting information regarding the method used to calculate the angle specified in section S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210. Your first question asks whether the agency uses a three dimensional protocol or a two dimensional protocol when calculating the angle formed by the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage. NHTSA uses a two dimensional protocol for these purposes. The agency recognizes that, as stated in your letter, this does not take into account the transverse coordinate of these two points. However, the agency does not believe that use of a two dimensional protocol diminishes the safety benefits offered by the safety belt system. Your second question asks whether the agency has made any interpretations of the phrase 'the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware connecting it to the anchorage.' The agency has never made a generally applicable interpretation of this phrase. When manufacturers have requested an interpretation for a specific design, the agency has indicated which point we would consider 'the nearest contact point.' If you have a specific design that concerns you, we can make a similar interpretation if you send us a diagram. It is always a pleasure to hear from representatives of Transport Canada. We believe our cooperation has been mutually beneficial for many years. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4939OpenWilliam E. Kenyon Mr. K's Original Headsaver Patented Restraint Systems 6560 North Scottsdale Road, Suite H103 Scottsdale, AZ 85253; William E. Kenyon Mr. K's Original Headsaver Patented Restraint Systems 6560 North Scottsdale Road Suite H103 Scottsdale AZ 85253; "Dear Mr Kenyon: This responds to your letter regarding a hea restraint system your company is producing for use in pickup trucks with bench seats. You indicated that your company's head restraints meet or exceed the performance requirements specified in Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. As support for this statement, you enclosed with your letter an affadavit, in which you stated that you had tested your company's head restraint in accordance with Standard No. 202 and that the results of the testing showed that your company's head restraint complied with the performance requirements of Standard No. 202. Accordingly, you stated that you would like your company's head restraint system to be 'federally approved as an after-market safety product.' As I will explain in more detail below, this agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. By way of background information, Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR 571.213), which applies to all new passenger cars, and all new trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 202 for your information. The Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) provides: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114... With respect to your company's product, please note that Standard No. 202 applies only to new motor vehicles and requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with the standard. By its own terms, Standard No. 202 does not apply to head restraints as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act does not require manufacturers of head restraints to certify that the head restraint complies with Standard No. 202 before selling the product. Additionally, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to certify or approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment as complying with our standards. In this regard, the process for certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver their products to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the product, the government approves the product for use and assigns it an approval code. In place of this sort of process, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's 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 test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. Although we do not have any safety standards that directly apply to your product, there are several provisions of the Safety Act that apply to the sale of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your head restraints are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, the use of aftermarket items could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The effect of this provision is to make it unlawful for any of the named commercial establishments to replace an original equipment head restraint with an aftermarket head restraint if the commercial establishment knows or should know that the switch to the aftermarket head restraint results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 202. Finally, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. This information sheet also explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0429OpenMr. Jay Samoff, Greenbaum, Wolff & Ernst, 437 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022; Mr. Jay Samoff Greenbaum Wolff & Ernst 437 Madison Avenue New York NY 10022; Dear Mr. Samoff: This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1971, requesting a official interpretation of certain provisions of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You ask whether S 573.5 requires quarterly reports to contain information of defect notification campaigns initiated prior to the regulation's effective date, which is now October 1, 1971 (36 F.R. 14742, August 11, 1971). If not, you ask whether an automobile manufacturer must provide any information concerning campaigns begun prior to the regulation's effective date.; The answer to your first question is no. Quarterly reports require pursuant to S 573.5 are not required to contain information regarding notification campaigns initiated before October 1, 1971.; With reference to your second question, manufacturers are required t provide certain information regarding notification campaigns initiated before the regulation's effective date. Section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1402(d)) requires manufacturers to furnish NHTSA a copy of all notices, bulletins, and other communications to dealers or purchasers regarding any defect in a vehicle of (sic) item of equipment sold or serviced by the dealer. In addition, S 573.7 of the Defect Reports regulations requires a copy of certain notices, bulletins, or other communications to be furnished to NHTSA monthly. Both of these requirements apply to notices, bulletins, and other communications regarding defects discovered or determined to be related to motor vehicle safety before as well as after the regulation's effective date. Furthermore, the agency may, should the need arise, request information from manufacturers regarding past campaigns under the authority of section 112(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1401(d)).; If you have further questions please write. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2414OpenHonorable Leonor K. Sullivan, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Leonor K. Sullivan House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mrs. Sullivan: This is in response to your September 20, 1976, letter concernin record keeping with respect to new passenger cars that are damaged prior to retail sale.; I would like to clarify the discussion of record requirements in m September 14, 1976, letter to you. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not require vehicle manufacturers to create records of safety-related repairs that are made to new motor vehicles prior to sale, we do require the *retention* of all such records that are in fact created by the manufacturer. Through such records, the NHTSA can in many cases trace the history of vehicles suspected of containing safety- related defects. We have not to date found a safety need sufficient to justify further requirements specifically regarding identification of the vehicles in question.; A copy of the record retention regulation, 49 CFR Part 576, is enclose for your convenience.; Sincerely, John W. Snow, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam2101OpenMr. Dudley E. DeWitt, Great Dane TRailers, Inc., P.O. Box 67, Savannah, Georgia 31402; Mr. Dudley E. DeWitt Great Dane TRailers Inc. P.O. Box 67 Savannah Georgia 31402; Dear Mr. DeWitt: #Please forgive the delay in responding to your lette of March 19, 1975, requesting clarification of the relationship between the masking requirement and the brake hose assembly performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*. #On August 1, 1975, the NHTSA issued a notice delaying until March 1, 1976, the effective date of the masking requirement, in order to allow time for public comment in its proposed elimination. Copies of this and a more recent notice are enclosed. #If the standard is amended to eliminate the masking requirement, the issues which you have raised will be mooted. Otherwise, these issues will be dealt with in an upcoming Federal Register notice. #Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.