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: aiam0519OpenMr. Donald R. Meton, Systems Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Donald R. Meton Systems Safety Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Meton: This is in reply to your telegram of December 9, 1971, in which yo asked whether the effective dates of Standards 206, 207, 208, and 210 are postponed to January 1, 1974 for firefighting vehicles as a result of the adoption of the effective date provisions of 49 CFR 571.8 (36 F.R. 13926, July 28, 1971).; Our answer is that since all of the amendments making the liste standards applicable to trucks were issued prior to the September 1, 1971 reference date used in 571.8, these standards are effective on the dates established at the time of their issuance. Versions of Standards 208 and 210 became effective for trucks on July 1, 1971, and amended versions of these standards, as well as standards 206 and 207 become effective January 1, 1972.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2524OpenMr. Dennis J. Mahr, Attorney at Law, 232 Davidson Building, Sioux City, IA 51101; Mr. Dennis J. Mahr Attorney at Law 232 Davidson Building Sioux City IA 51101; Dear Mr. Mahr: Thank you for your letter of February 23, 1977, concerning the For Motor Company's record keeping practices involving a 1967 Mercury Cougar. Because of the legal nature of your inquiry, I am forwarding your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Chief Counsel for reply.; If I can be of further assistance to you, please let me know. Sincerely, William E. Scott, Acting Director, National Center fo Statistics and Analysis, Research and Development; |
|
ID: aiam1098OpenMr. R. W. Lillie, R. W. Lillie & Company, 1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1449, Los Angeles, CA 90024; Mr. R. W. Lillie R. W. Lillie & Company 1100 Glendon Avenue Suite 1449 Los Angeles CA 90024; Dear Mr. Lillie: Thank you for your letter of April 3, 1973, and your further inquir concerning silicone brake fluids and plastic fuel tanks. Although performance characteristics for silicone brake fluids have not yet been proposed by this agency, we have adopted regulations covering labelling of containers for these fluids. The copy of Standard No. 116 enclosed with your last letter may not have included this latest amendment, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. This constitutes all the information we are presently able to supply concerning silicon brake fluids. However, future rule making action concerning these fluids is scheduled for the near future.; Regarding further actions concerning plastic fuel tanks, we woul advise, as stated in our last letter dated March 29, 1973, that you contact the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for further information at the following address:; >>>Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Department o Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4760OpenDelbert N. Pier Legislation and Compliance Coordinator Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48108; Delbert N. Pier Legislation and Compliance Coordinator Hyundai America Technical Center Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor MI 48108; "Dear Mr. Pier: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces. (49 CFR 571.107). I apologize for the delay in our response. You explained that Hyundai is planning to test the surface of a windshield wiper blade rail spring by using several rail springs gathered together because one spring would have a limited amount of area to reflect the light source. You asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to confirm your view that this method of compliance testing is a satisfactory method of complying with section S4 of Standard No. 107. By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ('Vehicle Safety Act') makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Each safety standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures used by the agency in its compliance testing to evaluate a vehicle or item of equipment. For instance, section S4 of Standard No. 107 specifies specular gloss requirements for certain vehicle components, including windshield wiper arms and blades. That provision requires that the specular gloss of the specified components must not exceed 40 units when measured by the 20 degree method of ASTM Standard D523-62T. While the agency would follow ASTM Standard D523-62T for purposes of compliance testing, the Vehicle Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products in the manner specified in a motor vehicle safety standard or even to test the product at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of that standard, provided, however, that the manufacturer exercises due care in ensuring that the vehicle or equipment will comply with Federal requirements when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. In other words, the manufacturer must show that its chosen means of evaluating compliance is a reasonable surrogate for the test procedure specified by the standard. In the event that the agency determines an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment tested in the agency's compliance program, the manufacturer must show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies. The manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised due care in its designing and manufacturing of the product and in its checking (through actual testing, computer simulation or otherwise) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply. Of course, notwithstanding the exercise of due care, the manufacturer would still be subject to the recall responsibilities of the Vehicle Safety Act for any noncomplying vehicles or equipment. With these considerations in mind, you appear, based on the statements in your letter, merely to be testing a group of identical components with identical specular gloss levels at one time rather than separately. If this is the case, it appears that your intended method of testing is consistent with the testing procedures in Standard No. 107. I hope this information answers your questions. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992, if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1562OpenRobert Markowitz, Esq., Lieberman, Tratras & Markowitz, Shepherd Law Plaza Building, 1300 Shepherd Drive, Houston, TX 77007; Robert Markowitz Esq. Lieberman Tratras & Markowitz Shepherd Law Plaza Building 1300 Shepherd Drive Houston TX 77007; Dear Mr. Markowitz: This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1974, forwarding to us second sample defect notification letter regarding the failure of certain trailers manufactured by Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company to conform to Standard No. 108.; Your notification letter still fails to conform to applicabl requirements (49 CFR Part 577, copy enclosed for your further reference). Particularly, Part 577 requires a specific opening statement, which you have omitted, and a specific second statement, which you have altered. We refer you to the regulation regarding the opening statement. With respect to the second, it must state, following the regulatory format, that the manufacturer, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company, has determined that a safety related defect exists. We also prefer, in the case of a defect resulting from a noncompliance, that, in addition to describing the equipment that is missing and that will be installed (as you have done), the notification include a statement that the defect results from the failure to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This information could come at the end of the second sentence of your first paragraph, which we assume will be rewritten to conform to this letter. In other respects your letter does conform to Part 577.; For your information, any future defect reports should be sent to th Office of Defects Investigation rather than to this office.; NHTSA has discontinued its mailing list concerning new regulations. enclose a copy of an information sheet on how to obtain our standards and other regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5258OpenMr. Toshi Tanaka General Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept. Sensor Technology Co., Ltd. 1-3-3 Yaesu, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 103, JAPAN; Mr. Toshi Tanaka General Manager Sales & Marketing Dept. Sensor Technology Co. Ltd. 1-3-3 Yaesu Chuo-ku Tokyo 103 JAPAN; "Dear Mr. Tanaka: This responds to your FAX of August 4, 1991, to Ms Delmas Johnson of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions and the answers to each follows. Is it true that the belt fastening law now goes into a part of the federal law? The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Federal requirements do not, however, regulate the use of vehicles. While there is no Federal requirement mandating safety belt use, a recent final rule will impose penalties on states which do not have both a safety belt and a motorcycle helmet use law by 1994. Currently, all the states and territories have some type of mandatory belt use law except Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Is it true that the cars with airbag do not need to perform 'Roll Over Test'? Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection systems are required to comply with certain injury criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. In addition, the automatic crash protection must either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements or have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly. A passenger car equipped with an air bag does not have to comply with the rollover test if it has a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at that position. To our knowledge, all vehicles currently being manufactured are certified to the automatic crash protection requirement by installing Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies. A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags and Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. I am enclosing a copy of the recently published final rule implementing these requirements. These requirements will make the option of complying with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements moot. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2067OpenMr. Eugene D. Sambucetti, Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales, P.O. Box 626, Woodland, CA 95695; Mr. Eugene D. Sambucetti Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales P.O. Box 626 Woodland CA 95695; Dear Mr. Sambucetti: This responds to your recent request for a discussion of wha constitutes the manufacture of a new trailer when used components from an existing trailer are utilized. As you are aware, a newly-manufactured air-braked trailer must, in all but a few cases, be equipped with an air brake system that conforms to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; The use of components in combination with used components to assemble complete vehicle is a common practice in both truck and trailer operations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized this commercial practice by establishing that the use of a new body on a used 'chassis' that has already been certified does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. In contrast, placing a used body on a new chassis that has never been certified as a vehicle has been determined to create a newly-manufactured vehicle that must be certified. This distinction did not present difficulty to trailer manufacturers in the past, when they were only required to meet the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; Since implementation of Standard No. 121, however, manufacturers hav had to determine whether the particular assembly they undertake contains a used 'chassis' which would not be required to meet the air brake standard. As a general matter, the NHTSA has stated that, as a minimum, the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and main frame of the existing vehicle must be used to qualify as a used 'chassis'. However, the many different types of trailer construction make it difficult to determine what constitutes the main frame of some configurations. The NHTSA has concluded that the load-bearing structural member(s) which run the length of the vehicle and support the trailer will be considered to be the 'main frame'.; In the case of monocoque van construction, the trailer side walls whic constitute the main load-bearing members through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of container chassis, the box frame that consitutes (sic the main load- bearing member through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run th length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of a tank trailer in which the tank serves the purpose o and replaces frame rails, the tank must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. If a separate frame serves as the load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle, the tank could be replaced without the operation constituting the manufacture of a new vehicle. An inner tank may be replaced without certification as a new vehicle if the inner tank does not serve as a main load-bearing member.; Modifications of existing trailers to increase or decrease volumetri capacity or vehicle length are generally permitted without recertification. For example, the barrel of a tank trailer may be lengthened in response to the new weight limits without recertification of the vehicle.; In closing, it should be noted that Bureau of Motor Carrier regulation may differ on modification or rebuilding of vehicles in interstate commerce.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5608OpenDr. Angela Mickalide Program Director National SAFE KIDS Campaign 111 Michigan Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20010-2970; Dr. Angela Mickalide Program Director National SAFE KIDS Campaign 111 Michigan Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20010-2970; Dear Dr. Mickalide: Thank you for your letter asking about the chil restraint registration form required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You ask whether a child restraint manufacturer could make certain modifications to the registration form to help SAFE KIDS obtain sociodemographic and other information about the families to whom SAFE KIDS will be distributing child seats. As explained below, Standard 213 does not permit the modifications, but does permit an alternative approach. You explain in your letter that SAFE KIDS and its partners will be providing approximately 38,000 child seats to needy families through distribution sites. You would like to collect information about the recipient families' sociodemographic profile and other factors, by having the restraint manufacturer add questions to the child seat registration form. Distribution site coordinators would mail the completed forms to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for SAFE KIDS' research purposes. The registration form you ask about is part of an owner registration program that NHTSA established to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer recall campaigns. The form, required by S5.8 of Standard 213, is standardized in appearance, and may not contain other material such as questions concerning the sociodemographic characteristics of the child restraint owners. A particular problem with such questions is that their presence on the registration form might cause some consumers to resist providing the information, or to conclude that the form was for warranty purposes rather than for safety recalls. As a result, they might not return the card. While we understand that you would like to modify the registration form only for the purposes of your distribution program, unfortunately we lack the authority to grant a special exemption for your situation. However, Standard 213 does permit an alternative that you suggested. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you said that you are considering asking the manufacturer to place the questions on a separate form and to attach that form to the child seat. That approach is fine. The registration form has to be attached to the child seat to ensure that owners will notice the form. While we want manufacturers to limit what additional materials they attach to child seats (to ensure that attachments do not distract from the form), your supplemental form should not cause a problem since your coordinators will be involved with registering the owners. Thus, there is no risk that the registration form will go unnoticed and uncompleted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Best wishes for success in your distribution program. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2437OpenM. Iwase, Chief, Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Shizuoka Works, 500, Kitawaki, Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken, JAPAN; M. Iwase Chief Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi Shizuoka-Ken JAPAN; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1976, regardin questions on Docket No. 75-8, Notice 5, for a two-lamp rectangular headlamp system. The answers are provided in accordance with the paragraph numbering of your letter.; >>>1) The two-lamp rectangular headlamps must meet the requirements o SAE J579c.<<<; This is an improved performance lamp over the requirements of SAE J579 and, therefore, must meet the requirements of SAE J579c.; >>>2) The maximum permissible candela for the Type 2B headlamp i 75,000 as specified in SAE J579c. The lower limit for other types of headlamps is retained awaiting future rulemaking action.; 3) SAE J580b as specified in the 1976 edition of the SAE Handbook i the correct reference specification for the Type 2B Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly.; 3-1) Answered above 3-2) Answered above 3-3) Appropriate revisions to subreferenced SAE standards have at thi time not been made for the Type 2B headlamp. In the case of SAE J580b, conducting the tests with a modified deflectometer to fit the Type 2B lamp would be sufficient. It is anticipated that revisions will soon be made to the appropriate subreferenced SAE standards for the Type 2B headlamp.<<<; Your suggested revisions for the referenced and subreferenced SA standards to incorporate the Type 2B headlamp, including a modified design of deflectometer, may be sent directly to:; >>>Society of Automotive Engineers, Detroit Office, Suite 206, 210 West Big Beaver, Troy, Michigan 48084, ATTENTION: Mr. James Tishkowski<<<; We hope this clarifies the questions contained in your letter. If yo have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4449OpenMr. A.J. Ackley Martek Corp. Box 229 Barrington, RI 02806; Mr. A.J. Ackley Martek Corp. Box 229 Barrington RI 02806; "Dear Mr. Ackley: This is in response to your letter of May 26, 1988 in which you asked whether this agency anticipated any legal problems with the design of your proposed safety triangle. You noted in your letter and in an accompanying diagram that the design of your product might differ from the typical design of a warning triangle because you intended to include a company's logo (the letter 'T' in a star) within the safety triangle. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your proposed product would be subject to Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, Copy enclosed). This standard establishes requirements for devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle. Paragraph S5.2.6 states that The device shall consist entirely of the triangular portion and attachments necessary for its support and enclosure, without additional visible shapes or attachments. (emphasis added) The standard's express prohibition against 'additional visible shapes or attachments' indicates that your proposal to include a logo in the center of the warning device would violate the safety standard. As a result, you could not legally market this product. The Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
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.