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: aiam2564OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your March 28, 1977, letter asking whether it is lega to certify a school bus manufactured after April 1, 1977, if the bus is painted a color other than National School Bus Glossy Yellow.; The certification requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration are found in Part 567, *Certification* (49 CFR 567). This part requires that a manufacturer certify that the vehicle he manufactures complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381). No safety standard promulgated under the Act requires that school buses be painted school bus yellow. Therefore, failure of a manufacturer to produce a school bus of that color would not be a violation of the Act, and his certification of the bus' compliance with motor vehicle safety standards would not be affected.; Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17, promulgated under the authorit of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), controls the color of school buses. This standard requires that all vehicles operating as school buses be painted National School Bus Glossy Yellow. Since this standard applies to the operation of school buses and not their construction, compliance with its requirements is not a prerequisite to motor vehicle safety standard certification.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0109OpenMr. D. C. Gershon, Director of Engineering, Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd., Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, England; Mr. D. C. Gershon Director of Engineering Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd. Newport Pagnell Buckinghamshire England; Dear Mr. Gershon: This is in response to your letter of August 27 and your cable o September 5.; You have written me with respect to the possibility of crash-testing a Aston Martin with weight added to the 6 cylinder engine so as to approximate the weight of a V8 engine which you may introduce in the future.; I am puzzled by your opening statement 'We are arranging . . . to cras one of our DBS cars . . . on your instructions and as we previously agreed to do . . ..' A review of the correspondence between the Federal Highway Administration/National Highway Safety Bureau and Aston Martin Lagonda does not disclose either our instructing you, or you (sic) agreeing, to crash test any motor vehicle. Generally, this correspondence has concerned the limited production vehicle problem and Public Law 90-283.; Since the demonstration procedure set forth in certain of the standard involves a crash test, an actual crash test seems the best way for a manufacturer to verify conformance with these standards. The standards, however, do not *per se* require a crash test, and 23 C.F.R. S255.11 specifically states that 'As approved equivalent may be substituted for any required destructive demonstration procedure.'; With respect to your planned test for September 13, our engineers d not view the 40 pound weight differential as significant, and, assuming no further modifications to the DBS, crash testing a 6 or a V8 simulation would be sufficient to demonstrate compliance for the current 6 or projected V8 model.; I understand your concern with the 'thought of having to smash car every time there is a change in specification', but you will have to face this issue every time a new Federal standard appears with a crash demonstration procedures (sic). You may not know of newly issued Standard No. 212 (Windshield Mounting - Passenger Cars), requiring a barrier collision test, and I enclose a copy for your information.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations |
|
ID: aiam2134OpenMr. Ralph Blake, 3319 W. Osborn Road, Suite A, Phoenix, AZ 85015; Mr. Ralph Blake 3319 W. Osborn Road Suite A Phoenix AZ 85015; Dear Mr. Blake: As you requested in your December 1, 1975, telephone conversation wit Karen Kreshover of this office, I am answering by letter your question as to whether motor vehicle dealers must retain copies of Federal odometer disclosure statements which they either receive or execute.; Section 408(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac (15 U.S.C. 1988(a)) gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to promulgate rules relating to the execution of statements disclosing odometer mileage on vehicles at the time of their sale. Such rules may, according to the Act, contain requirements prescribing the manner in which the necessary information is disclosed or retained.; Pursuant to the mandate of section 408, the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration promulgated 49 CFR Part 580, *Odometer Disclosure Requirements*. This regulation does not, however, require individuals to retain either copies or originals of odometer disclosure statements that come into their possession. This means that a dealer need not retain statements that are provided to him when he purchases a vehicle, nor must he retain copies of statements executed by him to purchasers of vehicles he sells.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3375OpenMr. Carl G. F. Pedersen, Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc., P.O. Box 1102, Blue Bell, PN 19422; Mr. Carl G. F. Pedersen Iveco Trucks of North America Inc. P.O. Box 1102 Blue Bell PN 19422; Dear Mr. Pedersen: This is in reply to your letter of October 30, 1980, asking question with respect to the term 'overall vehicle width' contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have first asked whether door handles are a part of the vehicle t be included in the definition. The answer is that they need not be included. The definition in 49 CFR 571.3(b) excludes outside rearview mirrors and other equipment items in computing 'overall vehicle width.' Although the definition does not list door handles among the equipment to be excluded in determining the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, they are substantially similar in character to outside rearview mirrors and the other equipment items listed and may be deemed included.; Your second question is whether vehicles, whose tolerances are suc that they are less than 80 inches in overall width, must nevertheless be equipped with clearance and identification lamps if the basic vehicle design is such that the 'nominal design dimensions of the widest part of the vehicle' is 80 inches or greater. The answer is yes. If the engineering drawings, etc. of the basic vehicle design posit an overall vehicle width of 80 inches or more, all vehicles manufactured on the basis of that specification must be equipped with clearance and identification lamps even if an occasional vehicle is produced whose overall width may be slightly less than 80 inches due to the tolerances involved.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt |
|
ID: aiam1348OpenMr. Alexander F. Klein, 43 Columbine Lane, Kings Park, NY 11754; Mr. Alexander F. Klein 43 Columbine Lane Kings Park NY 11754; Dear Mr. Klein: Your letter of December 3, 1973, indicates that the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration Region II office referred you to this office for an explanation of your rights under the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.; After January 18, 1973, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act prohibited alteration, resetting, or disconnection of a vehicle odometer with the intent to defraud a purchaser. After March 1, 1973, regulations under the Act require each seller to make a signed, written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage to his purchaser. If he knows the odometer reading is inaccurate, he must also state that the actual mileage is unknown. This statement must be made before the vehicle is sold.; If these regulations were violated in your particular case, as Troope Moran's investigation may indicate, a civil remedy is available to you under S 409 of the Act for $1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain your remedy, S 409 provides that you may bring a private civil action in State or Federal court.; You may wish to consult an attorney about the possibility of bringin an action in your case. I am enclosing the relevant portion of the Act and the odometer regulation for your information.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3725OpenMr. Robert J. Ainsworth, President, TOPAC International Trading Company, 325 N. Baldwin Park Blvd., City of Industry, CA 91746; Mr. Robert J. Ainsworth President TOPAC International Trading Company 325 N. Baldwin Park Blvd. City of Industry CA 91746; Dear Mr. Ainsworth: This is in response to your letter of July 12, 1983, with respect t UTQGS requirements and tires you intend to import form Shanghai, China. You have asked whether it is permissible, as an interim step to cover your initial order, if the factory affixes a label stating the traction and temperature ratings assigned to its 'Warrior' tires, subsequent tires will have this information molded into the sidewalls.; We understand from Mr. Vinson's phone conversation with you on July 2 that the tires have not been imported for sale previously and indeed are the product of a new factory which has recently opened. According to the UTQGS regulation, a tire need not have information molded into its sidewalls if it is 'a tire of a new tire line, manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line' (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)). We interpret this time frame as meaning within six months of the initial production of the tire line for export to the United States. Therefore, your initial shipment would appear to come within the exception established by the regulation.; If you have any further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1718OpenMr. Newman V. Gill, Marketing Manager, Barns (sic) Lumber and Manufacturing Co., 2813 Lombardy Lane, P.O. Box 20160, Dallas, TX 75220; Mr. Newman V. Gill Marketing Manager Barns (sic) Lumber and Manufacturing Co. 2813 Lombardy Lane P.O. Box 20160 Dallas TX 75220; Dear Mr. Gill: This responds to your November 21, 1974, request for a determinatio that the Barnes Models RTY, RT-XF, RTDF, RTCF, RTA, and GWPHD trailers all qualify as 'Heavy hauler trailers' and, as such, are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems, until September 1, 1976.; 'Heavy hauler trailer' is defined in the standard as follows: >>>'Heavy hauler trailer' means a trailer with one or more of th following characteristics:; (1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension o the vehicle frame, or; (2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carryin surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent 'front-end structure' as that term is used in S 393.106 of this title.<<<; The TRY, (sic) RT-XF, RTDF, RTCF, and RTA models appear to have brak lines that are designed to adapt to extension of the vehicle frame.; We would consider the cargo-carrying surface to the GWPHD to be th horizontal portion of the frame rails, and that it therefore would have a bed-height of less than 40 inches.; I would like to emphasize that your vehicles appear to qualify for thi exemption, but that it exists only until September 1, 1976. Each vehicle manufactured after that date must conform to the requirements of the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2837OpenMr. George C. Nield, President, Automobile Importers of America, 900 17th Street, N.W. Suite 100, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. George C. Nield President Automobile Importers of America 900 17th Street N.W. Suite 100 Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Nield: This responds to your recent letter asking whether passive safety belt are exempt from the requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*.; The answer to your question is yes, with one exception. Paragrap S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, specifies that passive safety belts that are not required for the vehicle to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of the standard must meet the requirements of Standard No. 209. Therefore, only passive belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 209.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3752OpenMoni Marcus, P. Eng., Chief Engineer, Flyer Industries Limited, 64 Hoka Street, Box 245 Transcona P.O., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R2C 3T4; Moni Marcus P. Eng. Chief Engineer Flyer Industries Limited 64 Hoka Street Box 245 Transcona P.O. Winnipeg Manitoba Canada R2C 3T4; Dear Mr. Marcus: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release* (49 CFR S 571.217). You stated that your company's transit bus models use eight large windows as large as emergency exits to satisfy the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217, and that the entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency doors. Accordingly, you stated that the entrance and exit doors do not 'have to be tested for Standard No. 217 requirements.' This is not wholly correct.; Standard No. 217 sets forth two basic requirements. These are (1 window retention requirements, which must be met by *all* windows in a new bus, except for the windshield, and (2) requirements applicable to emergency exits. As I pointed out in a letter to Mr. Moss, of your staff, the window retention requirements apply to all front door glazing which exceeds 8 inches in diameter, and this agency does test such glazing for compliance with the standard. Hence, while you may be correct in asserting that a door not designated as an emergency door would not be tested for compliance with the emergency exit requirements, you are incorrect if you are asserting that the glazing on such a door would not be tested for compliance with the window retention requirements.; Your letter went on to state that, although your entrance and exi doors are not classified as emergency exits, most local transit authorities have requested you to add a decal instructing people how to open the doors in case of an emergency. You then stated your opinion that the addition of these decals would not change the status of the doors to emergency exits, so the doors would not be required to meet the Standard No. 217 push force requirements applicable to emergency doors. This conclusion is incorrect.; Standard No. 217 specifies minimum criteria for emergency exits whic must be met by all new buses, and your letter states that your transit bus models do not need to count the entrance and exit doors on the buses to satisfy these criteria. Thus, absent other factors, those doors would not be required to comply with the portions of the standard applicable to emergency doors. However, affixing a decal, such as the one enclosed with your letter, in the area of those doors is labeling the door as an emergency exit. It is reasonable for riders of the bus to assume that a door which is labeled by the manufacturer with instructions in case of an emergency and which is intended by the local transit authority to be used as an exit in case of an emergency is in fact a door which can be used as an emergency exit. Given the likelihood of the use of the door as an emergency exit when it is so labeled, it is important that the door comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, and this agency has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in case of an emergency.; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a letter reaching thi same conclusion which was sent to another manufacturer. Contrary to the understanding expressed in your letter, this agency has never sent a letter to a manufacturer stating that doors labeled with emergency instructions were not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 217 applicable to emergency doors.; Should you need any further information or have further questions o this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4097OpenMs. Carol Dingledy, Communications Supervisor, Cosco Inc., 2525 State Street, Columbus, IN 47201; Ms. Carol Dingledy Communications Supervisor Cosco Inc. 2525 State Street Columbus IN 47201; Dear Ms. Dingledy: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, askin several questions about the effects of an amendment to the buckle force requirements in Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Buckles used on child restraints manufactured on or after February 16, 1986, must release with a minimum of 9 pounds force and a maximum of 14 pounds force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981, and February 15, 1986, were required to release with a minimum of 12 pounds applied force and a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured before January 1, 1981, were required to release with a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. You asked with which buckle release force requirements replacement buckles provided by your company should comply. Assuming that the replacement buckles are to be installed by you or dealers, distributors, or repair businesses, the answer is that the buckles may, at your option, comply with either the release force requirements applicable to child restraint buckles as of the date of manufacture of the child restraint *or* with the current buckle release force requirements.; Standard No. 213, like all of our safety standards applicable to item of motor vehicle equipment, does not apply to the equipment after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....' Please note that these prohibitions do not apply to the child restraint owner rendering inoperative some element of design installed on his or her child restraint. Hence, replacement buckles that are sold to and installed by child restraint owners are not required to comply with the provisions of Standard No. 213.; However, if you as a manufacturer, or any dealers, distributors, o repair businesses were to remove complying buckles from a child restraint and replace them with buckles that did not comply with Standard No. 213, this would violate section 108(a)(2)(A). This result arises because buckles with the specified release force levels were installed on an item of motor vehicle equipment (the child restraint system) in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (Standard No. 213). Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies that each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) subjects the violator to a potential $1,000 civil penalty.; Assuming that you or your dealers and distributors will be installin the replacement buckles, section 108(a)(2)(A) give you an option of which release force requirements the replacement buckles must meet. In connection with several other standards that have been amended, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has stated its opinion that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business does *not* knowingly render inoperative an element of design by replacing components installed in satisfaction of a safety standard with other components used in newer items of the same type in satisfaction of the same standard, even if the newer version of the standard imposes less stringent performance requirements. See, for example, the enclosed opinion issued when Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, was amended, 42 FR 26279, May 23, 1977. In this context, this opinion means that child restraint manufacturers may install replacement buckles that either:; >>>1. comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213 as of the dat the child restraint was manufactured, or; 2. comply with the current requirements of Standard No. 213.<<< If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.