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: aiam1614OpenMr. Robert S. Podlewski, Brake Engineer, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc., 1331 S. Washington, Lansing, MI 48920; Mr. Robert S. Podlewski Brake Engineer Diamond Reo Trucks Inc. 1331 S. Washington Lansing MI 48920; Dear Mr. Podlewski: This responds to your August 13, 1974, question whether building motor vehicle from a used power train (rear axle, suspension, drive line, and engine) and a new 'glider kit' constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle, subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121 after March 1, 1975. Typically, a 'glider kit' is a truck chassis on which a cab and front axle system are mounted, which is purchased to permit the re-utilization of a power train from another vehicle.; Re-use of components from an existing vehicle in the construction o another vehicle may or may not result in the manufacture of a new vehicle. The NHTSA has established that the addition of new components (such as truck body) to the chassis of a used vehicle does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. Conversely, the addition of used components to a new chassis which has never been certified in a vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle, subject to the safety standards in effect for that vehicle class on the date of manufacture. This criterion has been relied on in the area of chassis-cab multistage manufacture.; Since a glider kit typically incorporates a new chassis (as well as new cab and front suspension), the NHTSA finds that the use of such a glider kit in the construction of a motor vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. To conclude otherwise would mean that a vehicle composed entirely of brand new components except the rear axle and perhaps the engine and transmission, would qualify as a used vehicle.; You noted that our decision could eliminate the use of glider kit because Standard No. 121 certification would prevent re-use of rear axles which do not meet 121-level performance requirements. We believe that our determination will contribute to motor vehicle safety by introducing more 121-type vehicles on the highway and will not interfere with the use of glider kits in the long term. Glider kits can be made to meet Standard No. 121 as soon as 121-type rear axles become available on the used market. Until that time, the rear axles of present vehicles may be utilized as replacement parts in used vehicles which are not required to meet Standard No. 121.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0906OpenMr. Albert Benjamin Kelley, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Watergate Six Hundred, Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Albert Benjamin Kelley Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Watergate Six Hundred Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Kelley: It is my understanding that you have been given copies of ou compliance test procedure for Standard No. 215, as you requested in your letter of October 2, 1972.; In answer to the remaining questions in your letter, the informatio which we obtain from manufacturers in the course of a compliance investigation is retained in our investigatory files until the investigation is terminated. Upon termination the information is released for public inspection.; Each interpretation of the standard will be placed in th interpretations file ('Redbook') in the docket room as soon as it is sent. Copies will be made available upon request.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4416OpenMr. Larry W. Hoppe, Hoppe & Associates, 407 Howell Way, Edmonds, WA 98020; Mr. Larry W. Hoppe Hoppe & Associates 407 Howell Way Edmonds WA 98020; Dear Mr. Hoppe: This is in response to your March 30, 1987, letter requestin clarification concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. You indicate that there is confusion on the part of consumers, retailers, as well as enforcement authorities concerning the *lack* of the DOT initials on some helmets offered for sale in the United States. You further indicate that a recent letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance may have added to the confusion. I hope that the following clarifies the situation.; No manufacturer may display the DOT symbol on a motorcycle helmet unless the helmet complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218. What seems to be causing some of the confusion is that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 currently does not apply to all helmets sold in the United States. Paragraph S3 of Standard 218 states, in part, that '...this standard appl ies to all helmets that can be placed on the size C headform using normal fitting procedures. Helmets that cannot be placed on the size C headform will not be covered by this standard until it is extended to those sizes by further amendment.' If a helmet is *exempt* from complying with the Standard (because it cannot be placed on the size C headform using normal fitting procedures), it may not display the DOT symbol either. This is the case with what are typically the small or extra small helmets. Thus, it is perfectly appropriate for some helmets not to display the DOT symbol.; Further, as a cautionary note, the certification requirements of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq) prohibit any person from issuing a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if the person (using due care) has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. It is possible that placing the DOT symbol on a helmet to which the standard is not applicable may be false and misleading under section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act. There are possible fines associated with a determination under this section.; The agency recognizes that the lack of universal application of th standard may lead to some confusion in the marketplace. Now that adequate headforms exist so that all helmet sizes can be tested, we are working on a final rule which will extend the applicability of Standard 218 to all helmet sizes. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3279OpenMr. Hisakazu Murakami, Technical Representative, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 57105, Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 57105 Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning folding jump seats you intend to install in some future van models that your company manufactures. You ask whether the seats would qualify as 'designated seating positions', for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term 'designated seating position' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:; >>>any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least a large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, *except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats* . . . . (emphasis added).; << |
|
ID: aiam1244OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Toyota Motors Sales U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1973, concerning Toyota' use of a clip to prevent the shoulder belt from rubbing the occupant's neck. Your questions are (1) whether a clip of this type is permitted by Standard No. 208 and (2) whether the clip would be considered a part of the anchorage under Standard No. 210.; Your description of the clip indicates that it does not restrict th free travel of the webbing. The clip would therefore not inhibit the ability of the belt to adjust automatically to fit the occupant, as required by S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. It is our opinion that such a clip is permitted by Standard No. 208.; We have also concluded that a plastic guide clip designed so as not t affect the basic geometry of the belt during a crash is not a seat belt anchorage for purposes of Standard No. 210. The clip you describe would therefore not be required to meet the strength of location requirements of that Standard.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3783OpenMr. William R. Fink, President, Isis Imports, Ltd., P.O. Box 2290, US Custom House, San Francisco, CA 94126; Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 US Custom House San Francisco CA 94126; CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dear Mr. Fink: This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1983 requestin confidential treatment for information which was submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with statements of compliance and which pertained to vehicles imported by Isis Imports, Ltd. into the United States. In telephone conversations with Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, you indicated that you had no object to the release of HS Forms 189. You requested, however, that submitted drawings, diagrams, specifications and photographs showing the methods and extent of modifications made to Morgan vehicles be treated confidentially by this agency. After carefully reviewing the submitted materials and your justifications I have decided to grant your request in part and deny it in part.; All submitted materials will be afforded confidential treatment wit the exception of the photographs. NHTSA does not believe that their release will cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. In order to determine whether release of information will cause such harm, courts consider 'how valuable the information will be to the requesting competitors and how much this gain will damage the submitter.' *Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle*, 662 F. 2d 45, 51 (D.C. Cir. 1981).; You indicate that a presumption has been established by 49 CFR Part 51 with respect to blueprints and engineering drawings containing process of production data where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints or engineering drawings except after significant reverse engineering. This case determination, however, pertains only to blueprints and engineering drawings, it cannot be interpreted to apply to photographs. Additionally, release of the photographs will not be very valuable to the requesting competitor, and will therefore not cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. Since accompanying diagrams, text and other information will remain confidential, significant reverse engineering will still be required to determine the methods and extent of modifications necessary to bring Morgan vehicles into compliance with Federal standards.; If you wish to submit additional justification explaining why Isis i entitled to confidential treatment for the photographs you must do so within 10 days of your receipt of this letter. At the end of that period, they will be made publicly available. I will notify appropriate agency personnel of this decision, and they will treat your submissions accordingly.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4046OpenMr. Rolf Seiferheld, Service & Technical, Bitter Automobile of America, Inc., 401 Willowbrook Lane, West Chester, PA 19380; Mr. Rolf Seiferheld Service & Technical Bitter Automobile of America Inc. 401 Willowbrook Lane West Chester PA 19380; Dear Mr. Seiferheld: This responds to your letter asking about 49 CFR Part 581, *Bumpe Standard*. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are considering integrating fog-taillight assemblies in the rear bumper of a car and asked about relevant requirements. You noted in your letter that section S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) states that '(n)o additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.' You stated that this paragraph seems to be relevant but that it is unclear to you.; Both Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, and Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamp Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, are relevant to the location of fog-taillamp assemblies in the rear bumper. Fog lamps are lighting devices that are not covered by Standard No. 108. Therefore two questions must be asked: are they permissible, and if so, may they be combined with items of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Under section S4.1.3, quoted above, fog lamps are permissible provided that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, the question cannot be answered without reference to whether its combination with the taillamp is permitted, for from the photo and drawing submitted, both appear combined in a single housing incorporating, we assume, one filament for each function. Both lamps are 'position lamps', indicating the present of the vehicle in the roadway ahead to a driver who is following behind. The fog lamp is intended to be activated under extreme conditions of reduced visibility, and hence, would appear to increase the effectiveness of the taillamp rather than impair it. Section S4.4 of Standard No. 108 prohibits combining taillamps only with clearance lamps (not required lighting equipment for passenger cars), and thus combining the taillamp and fog lamp functions are permissible. Section S4.3.1.1 of the standard specifies, among other things, that no part of the vehicle may prevent a taillamp from meeting its photometric output at specified test points. Further, a taillamp located in the bumper must also meet the visibility requirements of SAE Standard J585e *Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps)*, September 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of J585e taillamps must be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right, to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface (excluding reflex), not less than 2 square inches measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.; Finally, Part 581 *Bumper Standard* specifies requirements for th impact resistance of vehicles in low speed front and rear collisions. Vehicles must be capable of meeting certain damage criteria, following specified test impacts. Among other things, lamps must be free of cracks and comply with applicable visibility requirements of section S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 following the impacts.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2891OpenMr. John B. Van de North, Jr., Briggs and Morgan, 2200 First National Bank Building, Saint Paul, MN 55101; Mr. John B. Van de North Jr. Briggs and Morgan 2200 First National Bank Building Saint Paul MN 55101; Dear Mr. Van de North: This responds to your October 9, 1978, letter asking several question concerning the modification and use of vans as school buses.; First, you ask whether your client may purchase a van that transport fewer than 10 passengers, and add passenger seating to it without complying with the school bus safety standards. The answer to your question is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates the manufacture of motor vehicles. Further, the agency prohibits manufacturers, dealers, repair businesses or distributors from subsequently rendering inoperative compliance of a motor vehicle with the safety standards. However, the agency does not regulate modifications made by vehicle owners on their own vehicles.; Second, you ask whether buses manufactured after April 1, 1977, whic were purchased to transport handicapped adults or other adults can subsequently be used to transport children to and from school even though the buses do not comply with the requirements. The answer to this question is the same as the answer to your first question. The agency regulates only the manufacture and initial sale of these vehicles and does not control the use of used vehicles.; Finally, you ask whether your client may purchase a 15 passenge vehicle and subsequently modify it in such a manner that it carries fewer than 10 passengers without complying with the school bus safety standards. Since the school bus safety standards apply only to vehicles carrying 10 or more passengers, a vehicle carrying fewer than 10 passengers is not required to comply with the requirements.; Although the Federal government's regulations do not prohibit th modifications that you propose in your letter, there are several other considerations of which your client should be made aware.; First, although your modifications do not fall within our authority, i the case of your first and second questions the vehicles may fall within a State's definition of school bus and should comply with the school bus safety standards. Some States will not permit the registration of vehicles for school bus use if those vehicles should comply with the safety standards and do not.; Therefore, you should check the appropriate State office to ensure tha the vehicles you intend to modify can be used under existing State law. Second, there is a potential for increased private tort liability for accidents occurring in vehicles that should comply with safety standards but do not.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4768OpenMr. Tony Llama President Davenport Enterprises 4705 Granada Boulevard Coral Gables, FL 33146; Mr. Tony Llama President Davenport Enterprises 4705 Granada Boulevard Coral Gables FL 33146; Dear Mr. Llama: This is in reply to your letter of June ll, l990, wit respect to the allowability of a temporary importation of a vehicle from Panama that does not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Specifically, the vehicle is a 'van' manufactured in the Soviet Union. Its Panamanian owner has requested that your company design and install a dual air conditioning unit for the vehicle. Once you have built and installed the unit, the van will be returned to Panama for evaluation and testing. You anticipate that the van will be in the United States for at least 90 days. After our review of this matter, we have determined that it would be appropriate for you to enter the van pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(j), under the declaration that the vehicle is being imported solely for the purpose of research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations. This declaration appears as Box 7 on the HS-7 importation form under which the vehicle will enter the United States. If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1090OpenMr. Huck Knight, Hyland Manufacturing, Inc. 220 First Street, P.O. Box R, Carlisle, IA 50047; Mr. Huck Knight Hyland Manufacturing Inc. 220 First Street P.O. Box R Carlisle IA 50047; Dear Mr. Knight: This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1973, in which yo asked whether the date a vehicle is completed, with reference to the date of manufacture placed on the vehicle certification label, is the date a vehicle comes off the 'main production line' or the date it comes out of the 'final finish production area'.; On this question we are willing, in light of the wide variety o possible factual situations, to let a manufacturer use his own discretion within reasonable limits. As you have described your situation, either date may be used, up to the point where the last physical operations are completed. The 'final quality control checkout', however, would appear to be an operation taking place after the manufacture as we normally understand it is completed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.