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: aiam1086OpenMr. E.J. Wagner, American Retreaders' Association, Inc., P.O. Box 17203, Louisville, Kentucky 40217; Mr. E.J. Wagner American Retreaders' Association Inc. P.O. Box 17203 Louisville Kentucky 40217; Dear Mr. Wagner: This is in reply to your letter of March 20, 1973, in which you as whether, if a retreaded tire cannot meet the dimensional requirements for its original casing size, it can be considered as and labeled with a smaller size, if it meets the dimensional requirements for the smaller size.; S5.1.4 of Standard No. 117 prohibits a retread tire from having a siz designation, maximum load rating, or maximum inflation pressure greater than that originally specified on the casing. It does not prohibit a retreaded tire from having a smaller size than its casing, as long as the retreaded tire meets all the requirements for its labeled Size designation.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1593OpenMr K.W.Berner,Manager Component Design & Development,International Harvester,Truck Division Engineering,2911 Meyer Road,Fort Wayne,Indiana 46803; Mr K.W.Berner Manager Component Design & Development International Harvester Truck Division Engineering 2911 Meyer Road Fort Wayne Indiana 46803; Dear Mr. Berner:#This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1974, t Dr. Gregory asking for confirmation of your interpretation of S5.3.1(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105.#Paragraph S5.3.1(b) states that an indicator lamp shall be activated whenever there is ' drop in the level of brake fluid in a master cylinder reservoir to less than ... one-fourth of the fluid reservoir capacity in any reservoir compartment...' This will confirm that the lamp must activate whenever the fluid in any compartment is less then one-fourth the capacity of that compartment, rather than one-fourth the total capacity of the reservoir regardless of the number of compartments.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3054OpenMr. Stephen E. Mulligan, International Harvester, Law Department, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan International Harvester Law Department 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60611; Dear Mr. Mulligan: This responds to your June 4, 1979, letter asking several question relating to manufacturer's responsibilities to maintain first purchaser lists and to certify vehicles in compliance with the safety standards.; Your first question asks whether a manufacturer is permitted to replac its first purchaser lists with lists of most recent purchasers when that information comes to a manufacturer's attention. You point out that Part 577, *Defect and Noncompliance Notification*, requires manufacturers to notify vehicle owners or the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) requires in section 158 (15 U.S.C. 1418) that manufacturers maintain lists of first purchasers of their vehicles. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate the issuance of defect and noncompliance notifications to vehicle owners. Lists of the most recent purchasers of a manufacturer's vehicles would be even more efficient for recall purposes than would first purchaser lists. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that maintaining lists of most recent purchasers of a manufacturer's vehicles satisfies the statutory requirement to maintain first purchaser lists.; In your second question, you ask about the labeling requirements o individuals that modify incomplete vehicles. IN the fact situation you present, International Harvester (IH) certifies a chassis-cab in accordance with the agency's certification regulations and transfers it to an IH dealer who performs some minor modifications on the chassis-cab prior to its delivery to a final-stage manufacturer. The IH dealership is either owned or controlled by IH. You ask what type of certification label the IH dealer should attach.; You suggest that an alterer's label might be the appropriate label t use. The other possibilities that you recommend are the use of an intermediate manufacturer's label or merely removing and amending the chassis-cab label attached to the incomplete vehicle. You suggest that the latter is more appropriate since the dealer modifying the chassis-cab is owned by IH, and therefore, it constitutes the same manufacturer that constructed the chassis- cab. You state further that to require an intermediate manufacturer's label appears to be inappropriate since that label would show that the chassis-cab and the intermediate manufacturer are both the same corporation.; Alterer's labels are only used by individuals or businesses modifyin vehicles that have been certified by a final-stage manufacturer. Therefore, an alterer's label would be inappropriate in this instance since the chassis- cab has not been certified as a completed vehicle.; The agency concludes that in the case where a manufacturer's wholl owned dealership is modifying a certified chassis, the label on the chassis-cab should be removed and a correct label should be added. In these instances, the chassis-cab is still within the control of the original manufacturer. Therefore, it is appropriate for that manufacturer to assume the responsibility for the modification made by its dealers. The dealer is not an independent business of the type that must attach an intermediate manufacturer's label. Accordingly, your dealer may amend the incomplete vehicle label as a result of its modifications.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1069OpenMr. Thomas J. Biernat, Biernat Business Forms, 1300 Second Street, N.E., Minneapolis, MN 55413; Mr. Thomas J. Biernat Biernat Business Forms 1300 Second Street N.E. Minneapolis MN 55413; Dear Mr. Biernat: This is in response to your request for information concerning a acceptable form to satisfy the disclosure requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Public Law 92-513.; In answer to your first question, the disclosure statement may b incorporated in the sales order form. An example of an adequate format is enclosed for your information.; Second, one copy of the statement is required to be given by th transferor to the transferee. However, good business practice makes advisable a file copy for the transferor's records.; Third, the transferor may receive the original or a copy of th statement.; Fourth, the required information is listed in the enclosed regulation There are no size requirements for the form or type.; Your suggestion to incorporate disclosure statements for both the ne and traded-in vehicles on the same form complies with the requirements if the statements are completed prior to the execution of transfer.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4791OpenMarc J. Fink, Esq. Dow, Lohnes & Albertson 1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037-1194; Marc J. Fink Esq. Dow Lohnes & Albertson 1255 23rd Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20037-1194; "Dear Mr. Fink: This responds to your letter of May 25, l990, to Rober F. Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, on behalf of your client, John A. Rosatti. Mr. Rosatti would like to import a nonconforming Porsche 959 into the United States as a 'demonstration' car. He intends to promote business by displaying it in his automobile dealerships and does not intend to drive it on the roads. Specifically, he would like to display it in his Acura dealership to build showroom traffic. He has offered to remove the engine, and to declare that, if the car is transferred by sale or inheritance, 'the new owner will be bound to keep the engine and body of the car separate.' In support of your request, you argue that entry into the United States is permissible pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), which implements l5 U.S.C. 1397(j). This section provides that the agency may exempt any person from the prohibitions in sections 1397(a)(1)(A) and (c)(1) 'upon such terms and conditions as NHTSA may find necessary solely for the purpose of research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training, or competitive racing events.' We are unable to agree with your interpretation and arguments. The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, which added l5 U.S.C. 1397(c) through (j), responded to a report of the General Accounting Office which indicated that a large number of nonconforming vehicles were being imported into the United States without sufficient assurances or evidence that they were being brought into compliance with all applicable Federal safety standards. The provisions that were enacted by Congress represent a significant, and, we believe, restrictive change from the regulations previously in force, and a clear directive to the agency to proceed in accordance with the new statutory language. The agency's previous position is represented by language that you cite in the preamble of the final rule (which you term Supplemental Information) adopting Part 591: 'Importation for this class of noncomplying motor vehicles i.e., demonstration vehicles has been permitted pursuant to the assumption that motor vehicle safety would not be affected by the temporary importation of noncomplying motor vehicles not generally used on the public roads, and whose appearance on them would be limited.' (54 FR 40076). Under the previous regulation, vehicles could be imported for purposes of 'show, test, experiment, competition, repair, or alterations' (19 CFR 12.80(b)(l)(vii)). You will note that, contrary to your parenthetical statement, the demonstration exception did not exist in the old regulation. The most appropriate exception in the old regulation for what your client contemplates was the one for 'show.' Under 591.5(j) of the new regulation, which follows the language of the statute, a vehicle may be imported for the purposes outlined in the second paragraph of this letter, none of which include 'show.' We interpreted 'show' to mean 'to cause to be seen,' such as in a static display. We do not interpret the word 'demonstrations' as encompassing static display, a vehicle is 'demonstrated' to a prospective purchaser, for example, by allowing him or her to drive it on the public roads. However, with respect to the new regulation, we have interpreted the word 'demonstration' only in the context of allowing importation of nonconforming vehicles by registered importers who wish to prove, or demonstrate, that the vehicle is capable of conformance modification under one of the provisions of 1397(c)(3)(A)(i). This, of course, is not the situation with your client, and we decline to provide the interpretation you suggest, as we do not believe that an importation under that circumstance accords with the intent of Congress. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3404OpenMr. John S. Miskowicz, Gateway Industries, Inc., 17512 Carriage Way Drive, Hazel Crest, IL 60429; Mr. John S. Miskowicz Gateway Industries Inc. 17512 Carriage Way Drive Hazel Crest IL 60429; Dear Mr. Miskowicz: This responds to your letter of March 2, 1981, to Vladislav Radovic concerning Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. Your letter was forwarded to this office for reply.; You asked whether a child restraint belt buckle must meet the buckl force release requirements when tested in an unloaded condition. In addition, you asked whether section 4.3(a) and 4.3(b) of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, are the only requirements of that standard which apply to buckles in child restraint systems. The answer is yes.; Section 5.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 provides that each child restrain belt buckle, when tested in accordance with S6.2, must not release when a force of not more than 12 pounds is applied before the dynamic sled specified in S6.1 is conducted. The buckle must release when a force of 20 pounds is applied after the dynamic sled test. Section 6.2 provides that in conducting the belt buckle release force test, the appropriate test dummy is placed in the restraint and either a pull force of 20 pounds is applied, in the case of 6-month-old test dummy, or a 45 pound pull force is applied, in the case of the three-year-old test dummy. Thus, the buckle is not tested in an unloaded state.; Section 5.4.2 of the standard provides that each belt buckle has t conform to the 'requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209.' No other provisions of Standard No. 209 apply to belt buckles used in child restraints.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1439OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, requestin clarification of the definition of school bus' as it appears in NHTSA regulations. You point out that school bus is defined for purposes of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school. . .', but is defined differently in Highway Safety Standard No. 17 (23 CFR 204.4), i.e., any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, *used* to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school'. You also refer to our interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 which states that the term school bus' as defined in 49 CFR S 571.3 includes buses designed as school buses but which are not intended or sold to transport children to and from school. You state that as a result it is unclear whether buses designed but not used as school buses, including church and civic group buses, must be equipped with warning lamps under S4.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In this regard, you state that you require purchasers to indicate on their purchase order whether the bus will be used primarily to transport children to and from school, and ask whether this is an acceptable form for a manufacturer to use to determine whether a vehicle will be used as a school bus.; We do not interpret Standard No. 108 to require warning lights on buse that are not intended to be used to transport school children. Our interpretation regarding Standard No. 217, exempting school bus-type buses from the emergency exit requirements of that standard (which applies as well to buses manufactured by Blue Bird), was based on what we believed at that time was a special need to exempt such buses from the requirements of that standard. We are aware of the inconsistency in the application of the definition of school bus' in Standards Nos. 108 and 217 and we intend to modify these requirements so that they will be applied consistently.; The difference between the definition ofBschool (sic) bus in th Highway Safety Act and in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under the Vehicle Safety Act is that the latter statute and the requirements issued thereunder apply to the manufacturing process. The requirements issued under the Highway Safety Act apply more directly to school bus use.; Whether a particular bus is a school bus cannot be ascertained merel by the representation of the purchaser. The manufacturer should base his decision as well on the objective characteristics of the vehicle, so that he can be reasonably certain that the purchaser's representations are *bona fide*.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0382OpenMr. Charles J. Calvin, Managing Director, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 1413 K Street, N. W., Washington, DC, 20005; Mr. Charles J. Calvin Managing Director Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1413 K Street N. W. Washington DC 20005; Dear Mr. Calvin: This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W Toms, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning your revised drawings showing the location of lamps and reflectors on various truck trailers.; Lamps and reflectors mounted as indicated on your three drawings, TTM 42171, would meet the location requirements of FMVSS No. 108.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Motor Vehicle Programs, Office o Operating Systems; |
|
ID: aiam0678OpenLouis C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Environmental Staff, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, Michigan 48090; Louis C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Environmental Staff General Motors Technical Center Warren Michigan 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1972, requestin elaboration of a statement made in the preamble to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You asked that the NHTSA identify the specific data it used in determining that with respect to wide angle positioning of the device, a lower minimum candlepower than that required by the E.C.E. Provides adequate protection.; As I said in my letter to you of March 27, 1972, in response to similar request, a large amount of material has been placed in this public docket as background for the rulemaking action. All of this material has been carefully studied by the NHTSA, and together with the expertise and judgment of NHTSA personnel, relied on in reaching the decisions involved in issuing this standard. In informal rulemaking proceedings, the decisions are based on the total weight of the agency's knowledge, not on particular items of information.; I will comment, however, that some of the materials relating to th passage that you quoted were submittals from Chrysler Corporation (Nr. 147) and the California Highway Patrol (Nr. 143), and the University of California report on triangle reflector performance (General Reference Nr. 17, Attachment 2).; Sincerely yours, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5180OpenMr. Joseph G. Wilson President The Monmouth Corporation Box 143 Highlands, NJ 07732; Mr. Joseph G. Wilson President The Monmouth Corporation Box 143 Highlands NJ 07732; "Dear Mr. Wilson: Thank you for your letter informing us of th Blu-Lite system, which your company developed. You stated that the system 'protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision.' You enclosed a brochure for our information, and would like to demonstrate your system to us. We regret that we cannot accept your offer for a demonstration. In addition, as discussed below, we must advise you that Blu-Lite appears to conflict with both Federal and local laws. Your brochure shows that Blu-Lite is a three compartment lamp, consisting of a center compartment with blue lens (described as 'emergency stop') flanked by two 'red stop lights'. Blue-Lite is shown installed in the rear parcel shelf, apparently as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp. In use, Blu-Lite flashes rapidly. The center highmounted stop lamp has been required as original equipment on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The effect of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) is to forbid any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the center highmounted stop lamp, and replacing it with any lamp that does not meet the requirements for the center lamp that was original equipment. Blu-Lite does not meet the original equipment specifications in lamp color, which must be red, and in operation, which must be steady-burning. Thus, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who substituted Blu-Lite for an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp would appear to be in violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). The Safety Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Blu-Lite, or any other person, including manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, from installing it on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, the legality of its use must be determined under state laws. It is our impression that many states allow the use of blue lamps only on emergency vehicles. Additionally, many states have laws similar to the Federal one as it relates to the performance and use of the center highmounted stop lamp. If you wish to confirm this, we suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, John Womack 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.