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: aiam5483OpenMessrs. Jim Cawse and Fred Diehl Plastics Technology Division General Electric Company One Plastics Ave. Pittsfield, MA 01201; Messrs. Jim Cawse and Fred Diehl Plastics Technology Division General Electric Company One Plastics Ave. Pittsfield MA 01201; Gentlemen: We have received your letter of January 2, 1995, asking fo a confirmation of the appropriateness of your proposed test procedures for plastic materials, as you wish to 'continue to adhere to the SAE testing protocol as delineated in SAE J576C.' Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires, with certain exceptions, that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE J576c. It has been the agency's position over the years that 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) does not establish a requirement that a manufacturer actually conduct compliance testing, but requires only that a vehicle or equipment item conform to any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard if tested in the manner set forth in the standard. We have advised that a manufacturer may exercise due care in certifying compliance of its product on bases other than the test procedures that are set forth in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, whether the procedures are incorporated by reference, as with J576c, or directly expressed in the standards themselves, although NHTSA itself will conduct its tests according to the procedures set forth in the standards. For this reason, we have no comment on the merits of your suggested approach. Because the agency has proposed amending Standard No. 108 to substitute SAE J576 JUL91 for J576c, we are filing your letter in Docket No. 94-37 as a comment to be considered in this rulemaking. Enclosed is a copy of the proposal with which you are probably already familiar. Although the comment period closed on January 3, it is the agency's practice to consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam5529OpenMr. Paul D. Kelly Albertson, Ward & McCaffrey 36 Euclid Street Woodbury, NJ 08096; Mr. Paul D. Kelly Albertson Ward & McCaffrey 36 Euclid Street Woodbury NJ 08096; "Dear Mr. Kelly: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995 requesting permission or a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow one of your clients, a 'corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens,' to modify a vehicle for one of its customers. You explained that the customer 'suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed.' You further explained that '(s)he cannot turn the factory steering wheel because it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges.' You described previous modifications done for this customer as follows: the steering box on a stock vehicle (would be) removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From this point after-market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed to accept this new steering wheel. You explained that your client was concerned that they would no longer be permitted to make such modifications as removal of the original steering wheel also results in removal of the air bag. During an April 4, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the vehicle is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of the steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 USC 30111). Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (49 USC 30112). If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC 30122). In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in the customer's vehicle is one means of complying with this requirement. As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem. As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement (58 FR 11975). Under the amendment, 'vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. A 'vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' is defined as vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat. Based on the information you provided, the customer's van would come within this definition. Therefore, if your client would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the 'make inoperative' prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1839OpenMr. 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: This is in response to your letter of March 3, 1975, requestin approval of your proposed owner notification letter for your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 75-0005) involving the front wheel bearings on some model L1113 trucks.; The letter which you propose sending to owners of the subject vehicle satisfactorily meets the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. Based on the information provided by you, your plan of notification appears to be adequate.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3804OpenMr. Stephen Underwood, Mazda (North America), Inc., 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Stephen Underwood Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Underwood: This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch o my staff on Standard No. 203, *Impact Protection for the Driver From the Steering Control System*. You asked how the steering wheel should be positioned when it is tested in accordance with the standard. As explained below, the steering wheel should be positioned at its design angle, as specified by the manufacturer.; Standard No. 203 incorporates by reference Society of Automotiv Engineers Recommended Practice J944, Steering Wheel Assembly Laboratory Test Procedure, December 1965. Section 6.2 of SAE J944 provides that the steering wheel is to be mounted 'at the proper angle as determined by the package drawing.' Therefore, the agency would mount the column at the design angle specified by the manufacturer.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2716OpenMr. Robert Kurre, Director of Engineering, Wayne Corporation, Industries Road, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert Kurre Director of Engineering Wayne Corporation Industries Road Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your oral request to Roger Tilton of my staff for th reasons that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) exempted buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less from the requirements of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*.; As you know, the NHTSA promulgated the joint strength standard t prevent injuries resulting from the impact of children with the sharp protruding edges of body panel sheets that become unfastened in school bus accidents. This problem, according to the information available to the agency, was particularly acute with respect to large school buses. The agency has no similar data indicating that the joint severance problem is a major factor contributing to injuries in accidents involving smaller school buses. Accordingly, the agency exempted those vehicles from the requirements. Should the NHTSA discover in the future that such problems exist with respect to smaller buses, it would consider extending the requirements to them.; I am enclosing a copy of our last notice on Standard No. 221 that full outlines our reasons for exempting smaller school buses.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2203OpenMr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your letter of February 10, 1976, concerning th definition of 'daylight opening' (DLO) as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219, *Windshield Zone Intrusion*, 49 CFR 571.219, and concerning the procedure used by General Motors to determine DLO.; Your letter states that General Motors is concerned about th definition of DLO as stated in Standard No. 219, and 'believes that the wording is not easily understood.' The definition of DLO as stated in the Standard is based upon the definition found in paragraph 2.3.12 of Section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace Automotive Drawing Standards, September, 1963. The SAE definition was slightly modified to reflect the particular characteristics of Standard No. 219. The last phrase of the SAE definition was changed to read 'as measured parallel to the outer surface of the glazing material,' because there was concern that there might be some confusion if the definition directed measurement by means of a 'vertical projection'.; Your letter describes General Motors' procedure for obtaining DLO, an asks if this procedure is consistent with the definition of DLO as specified in Standard No. 219. The answer to your question is yes. Your illustration (Figure 1) shows that you are measuring 'parallel to the outer surface of the glazing material'. Your Figure 1 is a simplified illustration, of course, since nearly all windshields are curved.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3941OpenDennis J. Slyman, Esq., 101 N. Main, Greensburg, PA 15601; Dennis J. Slyman Esq. 101 N. Main Greensburg PA 15601; Dear Mr. Slyman: Thank you for your letter of March 21, 1985 asking how the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act affects one of your clients. I hope the following discussion will explain the provisions of the Act.; You explained in your letter and a phone conversation of April 4, 1985 with Stephen Oesch of my staff that your client sold a new 1977 Dodge Van to Mon Valley United Health Services in March 1977. At the time of sale, the van was converted by Braun Corporation from a passenger van to a wheelchair van. Approximately two years after its purchase, Mon Valley requested your client to install a bench seat in the rear of the van. You stated that Mon Valley asked that the new seat not have safety belts and thus your client did not install them. Subsequently, a passenger sitting in the rear seat was injured in a crash and your client was sued for negligence.; I want to emphasize that our comments relate only to our interpretatio of the Safety Act from our vantage point as a Federal enforcement agency. The effect of Safety Act provisions in private products liability and negligence actions is a matter for state courts to determine.; You asked whether your client violated Section 108 and 125 of th Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1410) by not installing safety belts in a vehicle when it installed the bench seat in the used van. Because the vehicle involved was a used vehicle at the time the rear bench seat was installed, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) against selling or otherwise introducing into interstate commerce a new vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would not apply to your client. This is because Section 108(b)(1) of the Act specifically provides that the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) do not apply after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) may have an effect on your client's action. Tha section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) applies whether the vehicle is a new or used vehicle. Thus if the used van had safety belts in it at the position where your client installed the bench seat and your client removed them, there may have been a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). If the used van did not have safety belts at that position, Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not create an affirmative duty under Federal law to install safety belts. However, there may be such a duty under State statutory or common law. The other prohibitions of Section 108 do not apply to the situation you have described. Likewise Section 125 of the Act, which sets forth limitations on the agency's rulemaking authority, does not apply to your client's situation.; Other than Section 108(a)(2)(A), there are no other provisions of th Act that apply to your client's installation of a bench seat on a used vehicle.; If you have further questions, Stephen Oesch of my staff (202-426-2992 would be glad to assist you.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5196OpenMr. Ernest Farmer Director, Pupil Transportation Tennessee State Department of Education Office of Commissioner Nashville, TN 37243-0375; Mr. Ernest Farmer Director Pupil Transportation Tennessee State Department of Education Office of Commissioner Nashville TN 37243-0375; Dear Mr. Farmer: We have received your letter of June 25, 1993, wit respect to your plan to retrofit three school buses with strobe lights for 'the traditional incandescent lights currently used in the eight light overhead warning system on school buses.' You ask whether this equipment would 'conflict with the provisions of FMVSS 108.' Yes, the substitute system would not conform to S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 because it is not a school bus signal lamp system meeting the requirements of SAE J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964. Moreover, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(a)(2)(A)) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. We assume for purposes of this interpretation that the State is the owner of the school buses, and owns the repair facilities where the conversion will occur. Under these circumstances, there is no Federal legal prohibition against the State's conversion to the strobe light system if the work is performed in its own repair shops. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2653OpenHonorable Lamar Gudger, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; Honorable Lamar Gudger House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Mr. Gudger: Please excuse the delay in my response to your letter of June 15, 1977 addressed to Mr. Norman Sultan, with a copy to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Federal requirement for registration of tires.; Mr. Sultan has reported a tire registration of 10 percent in his are of operation which is considerable less than the national figures of 30 percent for retreads and 70 percent for new tire replacements developed in our studies. Mr. Sultan is urging a change in the law to permit voluntary registration of all tires.; Mr. John Snow, my predecessor, reported to the Honorable Warren G Magnuson, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, that consideration would be given to changing Regulation Part 574 allowing voluntary registration of retreaded tires in lieu of mandatory registration. Since taking office, I have devoted considerable attention to reviewing and analyzing the pertinent factors related to tire registration. I am convinced of the safety benefits of registering new tires and I consider the mandatory recordkeeping provision essential to the purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act. However, because retreaded tires are individually manufactured and therefore could not be recalled as are mass produced items, I am considering proposing revocation of the mandatory recordkeeping requirements for retreaded tires.; For your information I am enclosing a copy of my recent letter t Senator Magnuson in response to his questions on this subject.; You may be interested to know that a recent meeting wit representatives of the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association (NTDRA) provided an opportunity to discuss basic clerical problems associated with registration. As a result, an interpretation of the regulation was reached which would permit the tire purchaser personally to complete the registration form. Although dealer responsibility remains, the interpretation is considered by NTDRA to provide considerable relief to dealers in time and cost. Hopefully this action will offset much of the objections to the current tire registration process.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam0394OpenMr. J. A. Westphal, Senior Staff Engineer, FWD Corporation, Clintonville, WI 54929; Mr. J. A. Westphal Senior Staff Engineer FWD Corporation Clintonville WI 54929; Dear Mr. Westphal: This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 1971, concerning the Tir Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574).; You are correct in your interpretation of the regulation, the vehicl manufacturer is not required to forward tire data to the tire manufacturer. The vehicle manufacturer's responsibilities are limited to maintaining a record of the tires on or in the vehicle when shipped along with a record of the names and addresses of first purchasers of the vehicles equipped with such tires. The method of complying with these requirements is left to the vehicle manufacturer. In the event of a defect notification, the tire manufacturer will be under an obligation to notify the vehicle manufacturer describing the suspect tires.; If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.