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: aiam4346OpenMs. Deborah Rutan, Director of Marketing/Research, The Rutabaga Co., Inc., P. O. Box 413, 605 Robson Street, Winona Lake, IN 46590; Ms. Deborah Rutan Director of Marketing/Research The Rutabaga Co. Inc. P. O. Box 413 605 Robson Street Winona Lake IN 46590; Dear Ms. Rutan: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213, copy enclosed). Specifically, you sought our 'comments and recommendations' on a child harness/vest that your company has developed. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.; As you noted in your letter, your product is a 'child restraint system within the meaning of section S4 of Standard No. 213. this means that it is subject to all applicable requirements of the standard. From the pictures and descriptions of your harness/vest included with your letter, it appears that the harness/vest would have to be modified to comply with four particular requirements in Standard No. 213.; The first requirements with which you harness/vest does not appear t comply is set forth in section S5.4.3.4(b) of Standard No. 213. That section provides that each child harness shall 'provide lower torso restraint by means of lap and crotch belt.' The pictures of your harness/vest show that it does *not* include a crotch belt to restrain the child's lower torso. You will have to modify the design of the harness/vest to include a crotch belt in order for your harness/vest to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213.; The second requirement with which your harness/vest may not comply i the flammability resistance requirement incorporated in section S5.7 of Standard No. 213. That section provides, 'Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302.' I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information. As you will see, that standard requires that subject materials be resistant to flammability. You stated in your letter that the 'vest fabric is a strong, yet lightweight, polyester jersey knit.' It is not clear from this description if you knew your company has to certify that this vest fabric complies with the flammability resistance requirements specified in Standard No. 213.; The third and fourth requirements with which your harness/vest does no appear to comply are the labeling requirements in S5.5 of Standard No. 213 and the installation instructions in S5.6 of Standard No. 213. Both these requirements specify that certain information must be provided with each child restraint system. In the case of the labeling information, you are required to permanently label your harness/vest with the information specified in S5.5.2(a) through (1). Further, S5.5.3 requires that the information specified in S5.5.2(g) through (k) shall be located on the child restraint system so that it is visible when the system is properly installed in a vehicle. In the case of the installations instructions, S5.6.6 requires that the harness/vest have a location on it for storing your installation instructions. This could be satisfied by adding a pouch to the vest for storing these instructions.; In addition to these requirements, you would have to determine that th harness/vest complies with all the performance requirements set forth in S5 of Standard No. 213. Once you have made such a determination, you are required to certify that each harness/vest you manufacture satisfies all applicable requirements of Standard No. 213. This agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the child restraint, or any tests at all. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et Seq.*), we only require that a manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint system complies with Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling a new child restraint system test the system in accordance with the test procedures specified in Standard No. 213. Once you determine that your harness/vest complies with all requirements of Standard No. 213, you would certify that compliance by placing a certification label on the harness/vest, as specified in section S5.5 of the standard.; You should also be aware of the fact that you will be a manufacturer o motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture your harness/vest for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements or sections 151- 159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products that either do not comply with an applicable safety standard or have defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your harness/vest did not comply with a requirements of Standard No. 213 or that it had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the noncompliance or defects and either:; >>>1. repair the harness/vest so that the noncompliance or defect wa removed, or<<<; >>>2. replace the harness/vest with an identical or reasonabl equivalent product that does not have the noncompliance or defect.<<<; Whichever of these options were chosen, your company as th manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. This means you could not charge the owners of the harness/vests anything for the remedy if those harness/vest were purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.; If your decide to manufacture these harness/vests for sale, you shoul also be aware of 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification* (copy enclosed). This regulation requires a manufacturer of child restraint systems to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the child restraints it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured.; Finally, I would like to make clear that this discussion of ou requirements is not an agency 'recommendation'. NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. When we are presented with questions from potential manufacturers of new vehicles or items of equipment, such as your harness/vests, we only explain how our statute and regulations would apply to the new product. It is up to the individual manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of its product.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202)366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0305OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Executive Secretary, Distributors Association, P.O. Box 11088, Cincinnati, OH 45211; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Executive Secretary Distributors Association P.O. Box 11088 Cincinnati OH 45211; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in response to your letter of March 1, 1971, in which yo inquired whether a 'crew-cab' truck is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle or a truck.; You said in your letter, 'It was our reasoning that the prime purpos of an MPV was to carry passengers, rather than to haul something, and that the addition of a crew cab which would accommodate an additional three persons, onto a chassis-cab which contains a dump body or utility body would not necessarily change the classification.'; The above statement is essentially correct. A crew-cab truck combine the purposes of both a multipurpose passenger vehicle and a truck. Where a vehicle has a significant capability for carrying either persons or cargo, its manufacturer may exercise his own discretion in classifying the vehicle.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2338OpenMr. K. Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 1099 Wall Street, West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter concerning the labe required by S 567.4(g) of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*.; The certification label is required by paragraph (g)(3) to includ ''GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING' or 'GVWR' followed by the appropriate value in pounds...' Paragraph (g)(4) specifies a similar requirement for Gross Axle Weight Ratings.; You have pointed out that the Canadian motor vehicle safety regulation require a similar certification label with these weight ratings expressed in kilograms. You have asked whether a single label that expresses the weight ratings in both pounds and kilograms would be permitted by 49 CFR Part 567. The answer is yes, provided that each kilogram rating, which is optional, appear after the corresponding pound rating, which is required.; Please note that these two ratings differ in legal status. The ratin that is expressed in pounds is the official rating for the purposes of the United States Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. The accompanying equivalent kilogram rating, however, will be considered as optional, supplementary information provided for the guidance of the reader. This distinction is necessary, because the measurement values, including weights, that appear in our safety standards and regulations are specified in exact terms, without tolerances. While a measurement in English units can be 'equal' to one in metric units to any preselected number of significant figures, the two can never be exactly equal.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5107OpenMr. Curtis J. Crist Product Development US Marine P.O. Box 9029 Everett, WA 98206; Mr. Curtis J. Crist Product Development US Marine P.O. Box 9029 Everett WA 98206; Dear Mr. Crist: This responds to your letter of December 10, 1992, i which you ask for confirmation that the provisions of paragraph S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 relating to front side marker lamps for boat trailers remain unchanged from interpretations provided by this Office in 1976 and 1977. I am pleased to confirm that these requirements remain the same. Paragraph S4.3.1.3, however, was renumbered S5.3.1.3 several years ago. You have also asked as to what action you must take for elimination of the requirement for rear identification lamps on boat trailers 80 or more inches in overall width. You may file a petition for rulemaking requesting this change. I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, the regulation governing these petitions, which will advise you as to these procedures. Section 552.4 sets forth the information that the petition should contain, and the address to which it must be sent. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam0755OpenMr. Herbert O. Staiger, Jr., Secretary-Treasurer, Airport Truck Center, Inc., 50 Murphy Road, Hartford, CT 06114; Mr. Herbert O. Staiger Jr. Secretary-Treasurer Airport Truck Center Inc. 50 Murphy Road Hartford CT 06114; Dear Mr. Staiger: This is in response to your letter of May 23 to Mr. Schneider regardin incomplete vehicle certification and your responsibility as a truck dealership.; The regulation to which you refer is 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. It applies to incomplete vehicle manufacturers, intermediate manufacturers, and final-stage manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Truck dealers who perform these manufacturing functions are required to meet these requirements, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. The regulations do not apply to a truck dealer who does not modify completed vehicles received from a manufacturer or distributor.; Other Federal motor vehicle safety regulations and standards ar codified in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2768OpenMr. Joe Devane, Dorsey Trailers, Inc., Hickman Avenue, Elba, Alabama 36323; Mr. Joe Devane Dorsey Trailers Inc. Hickman Avenue Elba Alabama 36323; Dear Mr. Devane: This responds to your telephone request of February 9, 1978, to Roge Tilton of my staff asking whether Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, requires that you mount on your vehicles only retreaded tires containing the DOT symbol.; The standard in paragraph S5.1.3 requires that after January 1, 1978 all used tires mounted on vehicles covered by the standard be manufactured in accordance with Standard No. 119 as evidenced by the symbol DOT on the sidewall. Therefore, you would not be permitted to mount used tires on your vehicles that do not contain the DOT symbol.; Retreaded tires are not used tires. Retreaded tires must comply wit all applicable Federal requirements pertaining to them. In the case of retreaded nonpassenger car tires, there are no applicable Federal standards. The DOT symbol is only marked on those tires to which a Federal standard applies. Therefore, retreaded nonpassenger car tires do not need to be marked with the DOT symbol and, in fact, should not be marked with that symbol. Retreaded nonpassenger car tires without DOT Symbols can be mounted on your vehicles in full compliance with Standard No. 120. If the tires in your possession have the DOT symbol on them, they can still be mounted on your vehicles. The tire retreader would be responsible for the misapplication of the DOT symbol to these tires.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1847OpenHonorable Stuart Symington, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Stuart Symington United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Symington: This is in response to your letter of March 5, 1975, requesting ou comment on inquiries you have received concerning a proposed weakening of the bumper standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a *Federal Register* notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would then be increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a *Federal Register* notice that was published on March 12, 1975 (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Your interest in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5557OpenMr. Douglas Helbig Vice President Spencer Testing Services P.O. Box 429 Spencer, WV 25276; Mr. Douglas Helbig Vice President Spencer Testing Services P.O. Box 429 Spencer WV 25276; Dear Mr. Helbig: This responds to your letter asking me to confirm you belief that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lacks the authority to require the periodic reinspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on alternative fuel motor vehicles. You are correct. NHTSA has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment. I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2292OpenMr. John Eckhold, Automotive Safety Director, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. John Eckhold Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; Dear Mr. Eckhold: I am writing to inform you that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) will, for a limited time, refrain from enforcing one portion of 49 CFR Part 575, *Consumer Information Regulations*.; Subpart B of Part 575 specifies certain items of consumer informatio that apply to motor vehicles and their tires. Section 575.6 in Subpart A requires this information to be delivered to first purchasers (paragraphs (a) and (b)), made available to prospective purchasers (paragraph (c)) and submitted to the NHTSA (paragraph (d)). In particular, S 575.6(d) requires that:; >>>Each manufacturer of motor vehicles...shall submit to th Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Part B of this part that is applicable to the vehicles or tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before that information is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.<<<; I understand that the strike by the United Rubber Workers has, b cutting off the supply of new tires, created an emergency situation within the motor vehicle industry, making it difficult for a manufacturer to know more than several days before it completes a vehicle which tires will be available for installation on the vehicle. I understand further that the provision of such information to the NHTSA 30 days before it is made available to prospective purchasers has become virtually impossible.; In view of the impracticability under the current circumstances of th 30-day-notice requirement, the NHTSA has concluded that enforcement of the requirement at this time is inappropriate. Accordingly, with respect to vehicles offered for sale during the strike and the 60-day period following its settlement, the NHTSA will refrain from enforcing the 30-day-notice requirement in S 575.6(d). Submittals of information to the agency must continue to be made, however, not later than the time the information is made available to prospective purchasers. With respect to vehicles that will be offered for sale at the expiration of the 60-day period, the NHTSA expects to begin receiving submittals after the thirtieth day following settlement of the strike.; Please note that the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of 575.6, as well as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims--Passenger Cars*, are not affected by this letter.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam2787OpenMr. Donald L. Fowler, Ullman, Fowler & Jeffries, Inc., 2231 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205; Mr. Donald L. Fowler Ullman Fowler & Jeffries Inc. 2231 Devine Street Columbia SC 29205; Dear Mr. Fowler: This responds to your March 6, 1978, letter asking about the complianc responsibilities of a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a body on a motor vehicle chassis. In the situation you describe, the chassis would have been tested for compliance with the standards by the chassis manufacturer and the body would have been tested by the body manufacturer. You ask whether the final assembler would be required to crash test the vehicle as assembled.; The chassis manufacturer has responsibilities for compliance wit Federal safety standards that are outlined in Part 567, *Certification*, and Part 568, *Motor Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, of our regulations. The chassis manufacturer must include with its chassis an incomplete vehicle document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the compliance of the chassis with Federal safety standards. Although not required by our regulations, body manufacturers often provide documents addressing the compliance of their vehicle bodies with applicable safety standards. If a body that complies with Federal standards is mounted in accordance with the instructions of the incomplete vehicle document, the final-stage manufacturer can ordinarily assume that the completed vehicle complies with the safety standards. Based upon this assumption, it can certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards.; By following the instructions of the incomplete vehicle manufacture and relying upon the statements of the body manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer would be considered to have exercised due care in ensuring that the vehicle complies. However, if the final-stage manufacturer does not follow the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or in some way makes a major modification that would affect the compliance of the vehicle, it might become necessary for it to undertake some further testing to ensure continued compliance. The amount of further testing, in these instances, would depend upon the extend of modification of the vehicle body or chassis.; For your information, our safety standards and regulations are locate in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 501 *et seq*. I am enclosing a sheet which details the applicability of Federal standards to various vehicles.; If after reading this letter, you still have questions that require meeting, contact Roger Tilton of my staff.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.