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: aiam3548OpenMr. Gary D. Williams, Wisconsin Automobile Truck Dealers Association, P.O. Box 5345, Madison, WS (sic) 53705; Mr. Gary D. Williams Wisconsin Automobile Truck Dealers Association P.O. Box 5345 Madison WS (sic) 53705; Dear Mr. Williams: This is in response to your letter of November 17, 1981, proposing a amendment to Section 580.6 of the Odometer Disclosure Requirements. 49 CFR 580 *et seq*. We regret our delay in responding. Specifically, you proposed the inclusion of a certification on the odometer disclosure statement that 'the odometer reading is not known to be the actual mileage by the seller.' After consideration of this suggestion, we believe that such a certification of lack of knowledge would tend to defeat the purposes of the Federal odometer laws and we, therefore, cannot recommend such a certification for inclusion in the odometer disclosure statement.; Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac requires that each transferor of a motor vehicle furnish to the transferee a written statement certifying the accuracy of the mileage. 15 U.S.C. 1988. The regulations establish a specific scheme for the certification of the accuracy of the odometer reading 49 CFR 580.4(c)(1) - (3). Where a transferor has knowledge that the odometer reading is inaccurate, the regulations require the transferor to certify that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. However, where the transferor has no reason to believe that the odometer reading is inaccurate, the dealer must certify the accuracy of the odometer reading to the subsequent purchaser. Of course, this scheme also permits a dealer to rely on the statements of prior owners and transferors. This certification scheme ensures as much as possible a reliable and accurate mileage history of a vehicle without subjecting any party to liability without fault.; The purpose of this scheme is to make the practice of alteration o odometers without detection more difficult by creating a record of the mileage stated and acknowledged by buyer and seller at each transaction. Such a scheme allows a purchaser to search the chain of transactions to determine whether any previous title holder has reduced the mileage. This purpose would be defeated by any change in the scheme which allows a transferor to avoid making a mileage statement or to make an equivocal statement. Accordingly, unless there is a more compelling reason to allow the form of certification you propose, we would recommend against such an amendment.; If you wish to have your proposal considered more formally by th agency you may petition for rulemaking pursuant to the procedures set out at 49 CFR Part 552. We are enclosing a copy of this regulation.; Sincerely, David W. Allen, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1575OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Commander Heath: This is in reply to your letter of July 5, 1974, asking whether consistently with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, California may amend its vehicle code to permit the use of dark tint glazing material in the rear windows of passenger vehicles following their sale, when they are equipped with outside rearview mirrors on both sides of the vehicle.; Assuming that the material does not conform to Standard No. 205, a amendment such as the one you describe would not be consistent with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and would thus be null and void under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). That section preempts State standards which are not identical to Federal standards applicable to the same aspect of motor vehicle or equipment performance.; Standard No. 205 applies to the glazing used in motor vehicles, settin performance and labeling requirements as well as specifying in which vehicle locations various types of glazing materials may be used. The standard does not apply to motor vehicles as such, and your rationale that the standard does not apply after the vehicle's first purchase is inapposite in this case. Unless the glazing you describe meets the requirements for either one of the glazing items listed in ANS Z26.1 or one of the additional items added by Standard No. 205, it cannot be manufactured or sold for use in motor vehicles. Unless occurring after the first purchase of the glazing material for a purpose other than resale, the installation in a motor vehicle of glazing that does not conform to the standard, or its installation in a vehicle location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, regardless in each case of whether the vehicle is new or used, would be a violation of section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397), as it would be an introduction into interstate commerce of an item of motor vehicle equipment (the glazing) which did not conform to an applicable standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4777OpenDonald C. J. Gray, Commissioner Federal Supply Service General Services Administration Washington, DC 20406; Donald C. J. Gray Commissioner Federal Supply Service General Services Administration Washington DC 20406; "Dear Mr. Gray: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, ou Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your letter noted that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not apply to vehicles that are 'manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications.' You asked if this exception could be interpreted as applying to school buses purchased by the General Services Administration for the sole use of the Army. The answer to your specific question is 'yes.' Those buses would be regarded as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces. The exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c) reflects a balancing of competing interests. On the one hand, Congress specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that all new motor vehicles sold in the United States must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. On the other hand, NHTSA recognizes the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles. When the Armed Forces include specifications in a contract stating how the vehicles shall be produced and as a result the vehicles do not conform with some safety standards, this presumably reflects a judgment by the Armed Forces that the specialized capabilities needed in the vehicle are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the general interest in ensuring that Armed Forces' vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. To reflect both of these competing interests, NHTSA tailored a narrow exception to the broad requirement that all motor vehicles sold in the United States be certified as complying with the safety standards. This exception, reflected in the language of 49 CFR 571.7(c), provides that the safety standards do not apply to vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that are: manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications. We would regard the buses as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces despite the fact that the purchasing was performed by the GSA instead of some element of the Armed Forces. The essential element of this criterion is that the Armed Forces be the principal. In this case, the Armed Forces would be the principal, and the GSA would simply be acting as its agent. We see no meaningful difference between a sale to an element of the Armed Forces and one to the GSA acting as agent for the Armed Forces, as long as the vehicles are for the sole use of the military. Our conclusions in this regard are consistent with several 1975 agency interpretations informing brake hose manufacturers that brake hoses manufactured according to military specifications and sold to military contractors for incorporation in vehicles to be sold to the military could be regarded as equipment sold directly to the Armed Forces. Please note that to qualify for this exemption, the buses must be manufactured for the Armed Forces 'in conformity with contractual specifications.' In the interest of safety, we strongly recommend that the GSA or the Army, as appropriate, include the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses in those specifications, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended usage of the buses. I hope this response is useful. If you can provide me with further information, I would be happy to provide further guidance. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3118OpenMr. Walter Arrowsmith, Administrative Assistant, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, P.O. Box 16520, Columbus, OH 43216; Mr. Walter Arrowsmith Administrative Assistant Bureau of Motor Vehicles P.O. Box 16520 Columbus OH 43216; Dear Mr. Arrowsmith: This is to memorialize the telephone conversation you had with Kath DeMeter of my staff on Thursday, October 4, 1979, concerning the motor vehicle manufacturers' certificate of origin. You indicated to Ms. DeMeter that the new standard certificate of orgin (sic) has an assignment form on the reverse side for the transfer from the first dealer to the consumer. This assignment contains odometer information, including identifiers of the vehicle, a reference to Federal law, a statement of the odometer reading, a statement that the reading is actual unless one of two other statements (mileage not actual or mileage over 99,999 miles) is checked, the names and addresses of the buyer and the seller, and the signature of the seller. Ms. DeMeter informed you that in order for the certificate to substitute for a separate Federal odometer disclosure statement, it must include the signature of the buyer. Ms. DeMeter also indicated that when the assignment form is being used to transfer the vehicle from the dealer to another, the odometer information is not required under Federal law.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law an Legislation; |
|
ID: aiam1125OpenMr. A. N. Schuppert, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc., 1331 S. Washington, Lansing, MI 48920; Mr. A. N. Schuppert Diamond Reo Trucks Inc. 1331 S. Washington Lansing MI 48920; Dear Mr. Schuppert: By petition of March 16, 1973, Diamond Reo requested the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration to delay implementation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, with respect to certain categories of large capacity trucks with high centers of gravity.; We are uncertain from your petition as to the defining characteristic of the vehicles that you would have us temporarily exempt from the standard. We are also uncertain as to the magnitude of the problem that is being encountered by the vehicles in question: there would seem to be a problem with high speed stops, but there are no indications as to whether the parking brakes and other required systems also present difficulties.; After considering the request, which asks relief from all provisions o the standard, the agency has concluded that an exception of such magnitude is not warranted and therefore denies the request. The agency makes no finding as to whether more limited relief may be appropriate, and does not consider the denial of the March 16 request to preclude the company from submitting petitions for relief from specific aspects of the standard.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4327OpenMr. Daniel Rosendahl, Vice-President, Target Import, Valkenburgerstraat 16, 1011LZ, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Mr. Daniel Rosendahl Vice-President Target Import Valkenburgerstraat 16 1011LZ Amsterdam Netherlands; Dear Mr. Rosendahl: On March 10 the agency received your petition of November 14, 1986, fo temporary exemption of the Target kit car from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As you have described your operation, 'these vehicles utilize remanufactured/reinforced, engines/chassis of 1960-1980 year, model Citroen 2CV, AMI, and DYANE, and then are equipped with brand new re-inforced bodies of Fiberglass and/or metal.'; The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to vehicles from time of manufacture up to their sale to first purchasers for purposes other than resale. Once a vehicle is in use, Federal standards no longer apply to it (other than a prohibition against rendering inoperative safety equipment originally installed). In our interpretations to kit car manufacturers, we have advised them that installation of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle previously in use does not create a 'new' vehicle subject to the Federal safety standards, and such vehicles are subject only to the laws of the individual States where they will be sold, licensed, and operated. This appears to be the exact situation represented by your fabricating operations. Because a 'used' vehicle is not legally required to comply with the safety standards, there is no obligation that its manufacturer must meet, and hence, petitions for temporary exemption from the safety standards are moot.; However, under the Act, there is na obligation upon any perso importing a 'used' vehicle into the United States to bring it into compliance with all safety standards that would have applied to it at the time of its manufacture had it been manufactured in the United States. It appears appropriate to establish the date of manufacture as that of the original chassis. Thus, the importer of a Target vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1987, and placed upon a chassis manufactured in 1980, would be required to bring it into compliance with all Federal safety standards in effect in 1980. On the other hand, if the chassis of the Target were manufactured before January 1, 1968, there would be no obligation to conform to Federal vehicles standards as none applied before that date (We view equipment standards somewhat differently, the tires, wheel covers, brake hoses, brake fluid, lamps, glazing, and seat belts if any, on otherwise uncovered vehicles must meet standards in effect at time of importation).; In summary, there is no legal requirement that the manufacturer of th Target comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is a requirement that the importer of such a vehicle bring the car into compliance with all such Federal safety standards that may have been in effect when the chassis was manufactured. But there are no provisions under which an importer of a Target can petition for exemptions from the safety standards. The exemption authority that exists relates to new motor vehicles, and is available only to the original manufacturer of such vehicles. It does not extend to vehicles that the agency considers 'used', nor to importers for resale who are not the original manufacturers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0364OpenMr. George Talin, President, Lynd-Talin Tire Company, 3000 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90807; Mr. George Talin President Lynd-Talin Tire Company 3000 Cherry Avenue Long Beach CA 90807; Dear Mr. Talin: This is in reply to your letter of May 10, 1971, concerning the Tir Identification and Record Keeping Regulation. Please accept my apology for not responding earlier.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers eac enforcement case on an individual basis. If a retreader could demonstrate that good faith attempts had been made to obtain the tin plate by May 22, 1971, and due to circumstances beyond his control he was unable to mark tires manufactured after May 22, 1971, with the required information, we would certainly take this into consideration before beginning any enforcement action.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2359OpenMr. John Turnbull, Celanese Fibers Marketing Company, Charlotte, NC; Mr. John Turnbull Celanese Fibers Marketing Company Charlotte NC; Dear Mr. Turnbull: This responds to your March 19, 1976, recommendation that paragrap S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, be amended to clarify that the temperature specified in the resistance to light' test procedure is intended to be black panel' temperature rather than bare bulb' temperature.; The procedures outlined in Standard No. 209 for the resistance t light' test were adopted from the Bureau Standard's procedures for testing seat belts. The standard was developed by an industry and government group, which included Celanese Fibers, as a simplification and improvement of the A.S.T.M. Designation E42-64 procedure. The resistance to light' test was established to test nylon webbing, which was the standard material used in seat belt webbing at that time.; We recognize, however, that the industry now uses dacron and polyeste materials in seat belt webbing, and that the Standard 209 test procedure developed to test nylon does not give meaningful results for these new materials. Therefore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not enforce the requirements of paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209 in the case of seat belt webbing made of dacrons and polyesters, and will not until appropriate testing procedures can be developed and incorporated in the standard for these new materials.; Procedures for testing systems containing materials other than nylo are under development and we plan to initiate rulemaking to incorporate these procedures into standard(sic) 209. You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.; We would appreciate any data you may be able to provide regardin colorfastness tests for fabrics other than nylon.; Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5166OpenMr. Raymond S. Byers Engineering Manager, Research, Testing, and Certification Utilimaster Motor Corporation 65598 State Road #19 P.O. Box 860 Wakarusa, IN 46573; Mr. Raymond S. Byers Engineering Manager Research Testing and Certification Utilimaster Motor Corporation 65598 State Road #19 P.O. Box 860 Wakarusa IN 46573; "Dear Mr. Byers: This letter responds to your inquiry regarding th alternate placement of a vehicle certification label in your 'Aeromate' van. I apologize for the delay in responding. As you noted in your letter, 49 CFR 567.4 requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places listed in that provision. If none of the listed locations is practicable, 567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate position for the affixed label, and to request National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval for that position. You explain in your letter that in your 'Aeromate' vehicle, the driver's door slides between an inner and outer metal panel, thus making it impossible to affix the label to the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Based on the photographs you included with your letter, affixing the label to the inside of the driver's side door would be unacceptable because, when opened, the door slides between the two metal panels. Thus, when the door is in the open position, the label would be obscured from the view of any observer. You propose installing the label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's side door opening, to the left of the driver's legs under the instrument panel, and include photographs showing the label affixed to the proposed position. You state, and your photographs appear to confirm, that the location would be visible from the driver's position, and for inspection by officials. In directing a manufacturer to put its certification label in those places set out in 567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular vehicle design, installing the certification label as you propose will facilitate seeing and reading the label. On the other hand, placing the label as specified in 567.4 may not be practicable and might interfere with unobstructed viewing of the label. Therefore, on the condition that your company's label complies in all other respects with 567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's door opening as shown in the photographs that you provided to us. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone, at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1826OpenHonorable Roman L. Hruska, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Roman L. Hruska United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Hruska: I would like to respond to your February 19, 1975, request fo consideration of Mr. R. L. Herman's views on Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*. Mr. Herman objects that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may have ignored the majority of comments submitted in response to its recent proposal to delay implementation of the standard, that implementation of the standard should be reconsidered by an activity other than NHTSA, and that the new brake systems may be less safe than existing systems.; Standard No. 121 was issued as a final rule in February 1971. NHTS realized that the economic situation in the automotive industry this past fall might justify a postponement of the scheduled January 1, 1975, effective date. In the short time available for review of the standard before its effective dates, the NHTSA issued a proposal, received comments, and made its decision.; NHTSA concluded that net economic benefit would not be derived fro postponement. The decision was based on evaluation of all the comments, including those concerning the standard's immediate short-term impact on the national economic picture. An important factor in this case was the imminence of the standard and the degree to which financial and employment commitments were made.; As you may know, the President has directed (by Executive Order 11821 that each Federal agency consider the inflation impact of its regulatory actions. At the time of the NHTSA decision on December 31, 1974, final criteria and procedures for implementation of the Order were not yet established. NHTSA did, however, analyze economic effects of its proposal. NHTSA has committed itself publicly to continue monitoring the effectiveness of its standard in accordance with its statutory mandate and the President's direction, with a view to identifying any modifications that would lower costs while achieving comparable levels of safety.; An independent evaluation of the standard and its implementation by th Office of the Secretary (of the Department) was recently conducted, and this study supports the NHTSA decision. A copy of a letter regarding that evaluation is enclosed, and it discusses in detail Mr. Herman's concern about the field testing of the new braking components.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr. |
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.