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: aiam0153OpenMr. Joseph N. Ulman, Jr., Automotive Safety Engineer, Consumers Union, Auto Test Division, 367 Boston Post Road, Orange, CT 06477; Mr. Joseph N. Ulman Jr. Automotive Safety Engineer Consumers Union Auto Test Division 367 Boston Post Road Orange CT 06477; Dear Mr. Ulman: Thank you for your letters of March 17, 1969, and March 26, 1969 pertaining to certain child restraint devices and whether or not they are covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. Your specific questions and our corresponding answers are as follows:; >>>Question No. 1: Which of the commercially available devices mus comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard No. 209, which must not?; Answer No. 1: Child restraint devices must comply with the Type requirements of Standard No. 209 if, by visual examination of the design and the advertising thereof, they are sold as being a Type 3 seat belt assembly. By definition, a Type 3 seat belt assembly is a combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds or 23 kilograms and capable of sitting upright by themselves, that is children in the approximate age range of 8 months to 6 years.; Question No. 2: How does one tell whether a given device is covered o not?; Answer No. 2: If the manifested purpose of any belt, strap, webbing o similar device is to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, then the belt has to comply with the applicable portions of Standard No. 209. There is a distinct difference between a child seating system' and a seat belt used to restrain a child. Child seating system' means an item of motor vehicle equipment for seating and restraining a child being transported in a passenger car. This child seating system is not covered by Standard No. 209, but will be covered by a future standard.; Question No. 3: Is the criterion (that a given device must comply whether or not the maker claims that the device offers protection against impact injury?; Answer No. 3: Whether or not the maker of a child restraining bel claims that the device offers protection against impact injury is not the criterion upon which the compliance interpretation is based. (Reference Answer No. 2)<<<; Further investigation is needed before we can provide an answer to you question pertaining to which specific manufacturers of the belts that you tested are in violation.; To assist you in your project on child restraint devices, we ar enclosing the latest copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 and the copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on child restraint systems.; We trust that we have been of assistance to you. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Performance Analysis Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4110OpenMr. Paul Miller, Sales Manager, Arizona Bus Sales, Inc., 4001 South 34th Street, P.O. Box 21226, Phoenix, AZ 85036; Mr. Paul Miller Sales Manager Arizona Bus Sales Inc. 4001 South 34th Street P.O. Box 21226 Phoenix AZ 85036; Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your February 27, 1986 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking us to clarify Federal requirements applying to the sale of school buses.; You first asked whether a dealership that sells 15-passenger vans to private school violates Federal law if the vans do not comply with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The answer to your question is yes.; As we explained in our previous letter to you dated June 24, 1985 NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of all new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under Federal law, a 'bus' is a vehicle designed to carry *10* or more passengers (11 persons or more, including the driver), and a 'school bus' is a bus sold for purposes that include transporting school children to and from school or school-related events. We require persons selling new buses to ensure that those vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards when they are sold for purposes that include carrying school children. A person who sells a new bus for pupil transportation purposes would be subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act if the bus does not comply with Federal school bus safety standards.; Your second question asked whether the lease between the dealership an the school could be dissolved since the sale involved noncomplying buses. While we have no regulations which void or 'dissolve' sales of noncomplying motor vehicles, the school might be able to contact the dealership that sold the noncomplying school buses and arrange to have the vehicles repurchased or modified to meet Federal school bus safety standards. In addition, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law. In the past, many dealers who have been notified by NHTSA of the illegality of selling noncomplying vans as school vehicles repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law.; Your final question asked about an October 15, 1982 memorandum fro Arizona's Motor Vehicle Division regarding Arizona's definition of a 'school bus.' The Motor Vehicle Division had determined that it had no authority at that time to extend Arizona's school bus definition to buses used to carry school children to school-related activities. You believed that this interpretation conflicted with Federal law and asked for clarification of the matter.; It is important to separate NHTSA's regulations for school buses fro state school bus regulations. State regulations apply to the use of motor vehicles. Your state's definition of a 'school bus' is thus relevant for determining the state requirements applicable to school bus use. The consequence of Arizona determining that activity buses could not be considered 'school buses' under state law was to exclude those vehicles from its vehicle use laws for school buses. On the other hand, as explained above, Federal regulations apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Our 'school bus' definition is relevant for determining manufacturers' compliance with certifying their vehicles to the school bus safety standards and sellers' compliance with Federal requirements to sell complying school buses. Since our 'school bus' definition includes buses sold to transport school children to school- related events, persons who sell new vehicles designed to carry 10 or more passengers to persons intending to use the buses for that purpose must sell complying school buses. Whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under state regulations does not affect the responsibility of manufacturers and sellers to comply with Federal law.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1312OpenHOLMES PONTIAC CO. INC., George D. Smith, 1322 Texas Avenue, Shreveport, LA 71101; HOLMES PONTIAC CO. INC. George D. Smith 1322 Texas Avenue Shreveport LA 71101; Dear Mr. Smith: This is in response to your letter of October 17, 1973, concerning th permissibility of installing trailer hitches on your 1974 cars without violating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; The attachment of trailer hitches to automobile bumpers will no constitute a violation of any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The testing requirements of Standard No. 215, which are here applicable, specify that trailer hitches are to be removed prior to testing for compliance. Thus, it is only necessary that the automobile comply with the regulation when the trailer hitch is not attached.; We appreciate your inquiry. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4540OpenMr. Mamoru Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Homologation Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, JAPAN; Mr. Mamoru Arisaka Manager Automotive Lighting Homologation Sect. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 JAPAN; Dear Mr. Arisaka: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1988, wit respect to a motorcycle lighting device called the 'rolling headlamp.' The headlamp is designed to have its vertical plane always perpendicular to the ground regardless of the inclination of the motorcycle. You have asked whether such a device is legally permissible. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not prohibit alteration of the mounting angle of a headlamp. Although paragraph S4.3.1 requires each lamp to 'be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle,' your lamp appears to be 'securely mounted' even if it is able to rotate. I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3285OpenMr. Hiroshi Abe, Assistant General Manager, Isuzu Motor America, Inc., 21415 Civil Center Drive, Southfield, Michigan 48076; Mr. Hiroshi Abe Assistant General Manager Isuzu Motor America Inc. 21415 Civil Center Drive Southfield Michigan 48076; Dear Mr. Abe: This is in response to your letter of April 3, 1980, concerning th application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 to incomplete vehicles.; S4.1 of Standard No. 115 provides that '(e)ach vehicle manufactured i more than one stage shall have a VIN and check digit assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.' Consequently, Isuzu Motors, Inc. would be the entity responsible for assigning the vehicle identification number (VIN) to incomplete vehicles which it ships to the United States.; You wish to know whether the manufacturer identifier in the VIN of eac of these vehicles may designate the vehicle as a 'truck' instead of as an 'incomplete vehicle' if Isuzu knows that the complete vehicle will be a truck.; S4.5.1 of the standard provides that the first three characters of th VIN shall identify the manufacturer, make and type of vehicle. Table I of S4.5.2 delineates the different types of vehicles and includes a separate type designation for 'incomplete vehicles'. as explained in the preamble to Notice 8 (March 22, 1979, 44 FR 17489, at 17490), the 'incomplete vehicle' category was added because 'incomplete vehicle manufacturers would have little way of knowing the final configuration of the vehicle they produce.' It was never the intent of the agency, however, to preclude a manufacturer from indicating the precise types of completed vehicles if this is known.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1742OpenFrese Autozubehor, Metallwerk Frese GmbJ(sic), 5672 Leichlingen, Postfach 26; Frese Autozubehor Metallwerk Frese GmbJ(sic) 5672 Leichlingen Postfach 26; Dear Sir: This is in response to your letter of September 26, 1974, requesting a interpretation of the requirement contained in S3.1.2.2 of Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*.; We interpret paragraph S3.1.2.2 as providing for three sets o test-force directions. The requirement that a mirror in the head impact area deflect or collapse or break away without leaving sharp edges when impacted in a forward direction means that the 90 pounds of force is to be applied in a forward direction in a vertical longitudinal plane, from 45 degrees above to 45 degrees below the horizontal. (See side view sketch). The requirements that the same performance level be met when the mirror is impacted from the sidewall direction creates two additional sets of test-force directions, leftward and rightward in a vertical plane perpendicular to the vertical longitudinal plane. As in the forward impact portion of the requirement, the force must be applied from 45 degrees above to 45 degrees below the horizontal. (See front view sketch).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0850OpenMr. Larry E. Rhude, Bristol Laminating Corporation, P. O. Box 296, Bristol, IN, 46507; Mr. Larry E. Rhude Bristol Laminating Corporation P. O. Box 296 Bristol IN 46507; Dear Mr. Rhude: This is in reply to your letter of July 5, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to countertop materials used in recreational vehicles.; With regard to the specific components you have listed, sink tops vanity tops, and shelves would be considered 'compartment shelves' under paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302, and would therefore be subject to the requirements of the Standard. You are correct in assuming that the material used for countertops would be subject to the requirements of the Standard whenever it is used for the manufacture of components enumerated in S4.1.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3010OpenMr. M. Iwase, Chief, Overseas Technical Section, Technical Administration Department, Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Shizuoka Works, 500, Kitawaki, Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken, JAPAN; Mr. M. Iwase Chief Overseas Technical Section Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi Shizuoka-Ken JAPAN; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1979, to Bill Eason wit respect to headlamp lens marking. Mr. Eason is no longer associated with the Office of Rulemaking and we regret the delay in writing you.; You have asked for a confirmation of your interpretation that: >>>'The headlamp designed to conform to J579c shall be provided wit the lens marking specified in S4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 *even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd*.'<<<; You are correct that S4.1.1.21 permits the new code marking fo headlamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J579c even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the maximum of 75,000 cds permissible under J579c or the previous maximum of 37,500 cd of J579a. But because the code could be misleading, we are considering proposing an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would delete the new code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed a certain value, such as 40,000 cd.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4385OpenMr. Jackson Decker, Chief Product Engineer, E. E. Etnyre & Company, 200 Jefferson Street, Oregon, IL 61061; Mr. Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer E. E. Etnyre & Company 200 Jefferson Street Oregon IL 61061; Dear Mr. Decker: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1969, to the Federa Highway Administration, that has been referred to this office. In your letter you ask for a yes or no answer to specific questions relative to certification of assemblies completed from chassis-cabs. The answers to your questions follow:; 1. *QUESTION:*>>>'We manufacture bodies that are sold through non-exclusive dealer that sells construction equipment. The dealers sale includes only the body and its mounting on a chassis-cab. The chassis-cab is furnished by the customer and is normally purchased through a second dealer that handles truck sales. The chassis-cab is delivered to our factory for the mounting of the body. Do we supply certification for the completed vehicle?'<<<; *ANSWER:*>>>The answer to your first question is yes, you would suppl certification to the dealer or distributor at the time of delivery of the vehicle.<<<; 2. *QUESTION:*>>>'If the answer to the first question is yes, do w remove the temporary certification label on the chassis cab (367.5), write the chassis-cab vehicle identification number on this and place this in our file as evidence that the vehicle we assemble has been furnished with a certified chassis- cab?'<<<; *ANSWER:*>>>A simple yes or no answer cannot be given to question No 2. The method you use in procuring and retaining information relative to the chassis-cab would be up to you. The procedure you describe, writing the chassis-cab identification numbers on the label and placing same in your file would be considered satisfactory.<<<; 3. *QUESTION:*>>>'With reference to the vehicle identification number paragraph 367.4(g)(4), do we supply only our vehicle identification (or serial) number?'<<<; *ANSWER:*>>>Yes, you would only supply your vehicle identification (o serial) number in accordance with Part 367.4(g)(2) of the regulation.<<<; 4. *QUESTION:*>>>'Paragraph 367.4(g)(2) requires the month and year o manufacture. It further states 'This shall be the time during which work was completed at the place of main assembly of the vehicle.' In a previous response to a letter of ours signed by Mr. F. C. Turner and addressed to Senator Charles Persy (copy enclosed). Mr. Turner stated that a FHWA ruling stated that a completed assemblege (sic) need only conform to the standards that were in effect at the time of completion of the chassis-cab. May we assume that the date we should supply on this requirement will be the month and year of manufacture as stated on the label in paragraph 367.5?'<<<; *ANSWER:*>>>Yes, the month and year of manufacture of the chassis-ca would be used to satisfy the requirements of 367.4(g)(2), month and year of manufacture.<<<; We trust this will clarify the situation for you. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Performance Analysis Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam3440OpenMr. Willis R. Dunkley, Jean's Portable Highchair & Car Seat, 3035 Washington Blvd., Ogden, UT 84401; Mr. Willis R. Dunkley Jean's Portable Highchair & Car Seat 3035 Washington Blvd. Ogden UT 84401; Dear Mr. Dunkley: Your letter to Mr. Vladislav Radovich was forwarded to my office for reply. You wrote concerning information on Federal regulations applicable to child restraint systems. In particular, you were seeking agency approval for the child restraint system you propose to market.; Manufacturers of items of motor vehicle equipment, such as chil restraints, are regulated by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.), a copy of which is enclosed. The Act does not authorize the agency to approve products. Section 114 of the Act requires 'self-certification' by manufacturers that their product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; In the case of your product, the applicable standard is No. 213, *Chil Restraint Systems*. The new version of that standard, which went into effect on January 1, 1981, requires manufacturers to certify that their child restraint system can meet the dynamic test and other requirements of the standard. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 213 for your reference.; As you requested, I am returning the pictures enclosed with you letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.