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: aiam2556OpenHonorable Frank Horton, Chairman, Commission on Federal Paperwork, 1111 Twentieth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20582; Honorable Frank Horton Chairman Commission on Federal Paperwork 1111 Twentieth Street N.W. Washington DC 20582; Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your March 9, 1977, letter requesting a copy of th report prepared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in response to the Senate Commerce Committee's inquiries concerning the recordkeeping requirements of the tire registration program. I too am interested in reducing the burden upon the public occasioned by unnecessary paperwork. In accordance with your request, I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA report.; Regarding your comments concerning the viability of a voluntary tir registration technique to replace the present registration program, you should note that the NHTSA has considered the possibility of a voluntary registration procedure similar to the warranty card procedure utilized by appliance manufacturers. Through informal inquiries of appliance manufacturers, the agency discovered that return of warranty cards averages about 50 percent in the case of expensive appliances and falls as low as 10 percent in the case of 10- to 35-dollar items. An entirely separate problem arises with voluntary registration of tires in that the purchaser cannot be expected to distinguish the serial number from other numbers that appear on each tire. More important, the identification number is placed on the side opposite the whitewall on many tires, and it is probable that the purchaser would fail to locate the correct number in the typical situation where the tires are mounted on his vehicle before he sees them.; If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, Brock Adams |
|
ID: aiam0204OpenMr. C. L. Eshelman, President, Eshelman, Inc., 621 N.E. 30th Terrace, Miami, FL 33137; Mr. C. L. Eshelman President Eshelman Inc. 621 N.E. 30th Terrace Miami FL 33137; >>>Re: Consumer Information--Certification-- Distributions<<< Dear Mr. Eshelman: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1969, in which yo responded to our inquiry concerning consumer information on vehicles sold by your company.; You stated that your Golden Eagle cars are 'made from new mode Chevrolets without any mechanical change,' and that the 'consumer information and the warranty book as supplied by General Motors are passed along to the consumer with the vehicle.' You also stated that you place a label next to the GM certification label, quoting language similar to that specified in the Certification Regulations for the distributor who alters a vehicle, 49 CFR S 367.6. We are enclosing a copy of the Certification Regulations: please note that the abovementioned distributor statement, if it is applicable, requires the month and year of alteration to be stated immediately after the name of the distributor.; The question whether the procedure you have outlined in respect t certification is acceptable depends on whether the alterations that you perform on the Chevrolets are sufficiently minor to place you in the category of 'distributor' rather than 'manufacturer'. In order to make this determination, we need and would like to receive more detailed information on the work that you do on the vehicles.; The question whether the practice you describe, of passing on th General Motors consumer information, is acceptable depends on whether the information is actually correct for the vehicles as you alter them. The weight of the final vehicle, for example, is an important factor in the vehicle's performance in all three areas of acceleration, braking, and tire reserve load. We should mention that you are fully responsible, subject to the penalties specified in section 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for ensuring that the correctness of the consumer information that you provide with your vehicles is not adversely affected by the work that you do on them, whether you are ultimately placed in the category of manufacturer or distributor.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam2239OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to several questions raised by Blue Bird Body Compan concerning the applicability of school bus safety standards to certain bus types under the newly-issued redefinition of school bus (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The new definition (effective October 27, 1976) reads:; >>> School bus' means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstat commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.<<<; In your February 24, 1976, letter you ask whether buses utilized t transport athletic teams and school bands to and from athletic events qualify as school buses under the definition that becomes effective October 27, 1976, and, if so, whether they must therefore comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; From your description of the use of an activity bus' to transpor students to and from athletic events related to the students' school, it would be included as a school bus under the new definition if it were sold for this use. It appears clear that the manufacturer and dealer in these cases would both be aware that the purchasing school intended to use the bus to transport students to events related to their school, such as athletic events involving school teams. In close cases, the knowledge of parties to the sales transaction would be determinative of whether the bus was sold...for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events....' Any bus determined to be a school bus under the new definition would be required to meet all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture.; Your December 16, 1975, letter asks whether transit buses that ar based on a basic school bus design must meet the requirements of Standard No. 217, *Emergency Exits*, that apply to buses other than school buses. Since receipt of your letter, the redefinition of school bus has been issued and Standard No. 217 has been amended by the addition of requirements for school buses. In answer to your question, only a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school qualifies as a school bus. A bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation would be required to meet the requirements of Standard 217 for buses other than school buses.; Your separate question regarding the configuration of emergency exit has been answered in an earlier interpretation of the provision you question. A copy of that interpretation is enclosed.; Your March 4, 1976, letter asked whether the new definition of schoo bus includes buses that are sold for transportation of college-age students. You argued that an intent to include buses other than those for the transportation of preprimary-, primary-, and secondary-school students would go beyond the statutory definition added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. S1391(14)), and apply the standards to a broader variety of vehicles than those for which they were developed. The NHTSA finds this argument to have merit. It therefore withdraws its discussion of the breadth of the regulatory definition of school bus that appeared in the December 31, 1975, preamble. The agency will not consider buses sold for the transportation of college-age students to be school buses.; You also asked if any motor vehicle safety standard requires tha school buses be painted yellow. No motor vehicle safety standard requires yellow paint. At this time, however, Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,* requires installation of warning lights, and this would entail the use of yellow paint by the operator under Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17.; In an area unrelated to school bus definition, you asked in a Februar 20, 1976, letter whether the description of vehicle roof appearing in S5.2(b) of Standard No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, applies to determination of roof size under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b). The description is intended to apply to roof measurement under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5006OpenMr. Charles Chun General Manager Kia Motors Corporation Los Angeles Office 1 Technology Drive, Building H Irvine, CA 92718; Mr. Charles Chun General Manager Kia Motors Corporation Los Angeles Office 1 Technology Drive Building H Irvine CA 92718; "Dear Mr. Chun: This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992 requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below. First, you asked about the meaning of 'manufactured date,' in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the 'manufactured date' would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance. For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the 'manufactured date' for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea. Second, you asked whether 'manufactured date,' as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as 'model year.' The answer is no. The term 'model year' is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as 'the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.' As explained above, the concept of 'manufactured date' refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer. Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years. See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars. I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0654OpenMr. Italo De Gregori, Fabbrica Pisana S.p.A., Direzione Commerciale, Servizio Tecnico Commerciale, E Controllo Qualita, Via E. Romagnoli 6, 20146 Milano, Italy; Mr. Italo De Gregori Fabbrica Pisana S.p.A. Direzione Commerciale Servizio Tecnico Commerciale E Controllo Qualita Via E. Romagnoli 6 20146 Milano Italy; Dear Mr. De Gregori: Thank you for your letter of March 10, 1972, concerning marking of you glazing materials intended for the American market.; The marking you propose to use satisfies the requirements of Standar No. 205, *Glazing Materials*.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2669OpenHonorable Jerome A. Ambro, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Jerome A. Ambro House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Ambro: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1977, regarding letter from your constituent, Mr. Larry Gabor, Chairman of the Huntington Consumer Protection Board, concerning the safety of vehicle seats which do not lock in fore-and-aft adjustment position.; As we explained to Mr. Gabor in our letter of August 18, 1977 (cop enclosed), we have a Federal motor vehicle safety standard which is designed to prevent this situation. The standard regulates vehicles at initial sale, but does not cover inadvertent failure or premature wear-out situations. We do have authority to investigate such situations, however, to determine if grounds exist for conduct of a safety related defect 'recall campaign.' We are forwarding a copy of Mr. Gabor's letter to our Office of Defects Investigation to alert them of this situation. Our previous letter urged Mr. Gabor to furnish them the pertinent details on this matter. Only then can they investigate properly.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam1946OpenHonorable Larry Winn, Jr., House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Larry Winn Jr. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Winn: This is in reply to your letters of January 28 and May 14, 1975 inquiring about the effect of Federal motor vehicle safety standards on a constituent's problem in finding a mid-size American car with a sufficiently adjustable seat or a dealer willing to modify such a vehicle to accommodate your constituent's 6-feet 8-inch frame.; The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-492 amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*., to prohibit any 'manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business' from 'knowingly render(ing) 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 . . .' Because seat position is a variable which may affect compliance with several safety standards, dealers are understandably wary about relocating a vehicle's seat.; The obvious solution for this problem is for the manufacturer t determine how far its seats can be moved outside their normal adjustment ranges and still comply with applicable standards, and then to make this information available. I hope that Mr. Morton has found a dealer or manufacturer who is willing to make an effort to do this instead of relying on the excuse that Federal law precludes any solution. Mr. Morton also has two other alternatives: to buy and have installed a custom seat from a company willing to certify the altered vehicle under 49 CFR 567.7, or to move the original seat himself or with the assistance of people who are not in the motor vehicle repair business.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5456OpenMr. Thomas L. Wright Coordinator, Technical Support New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles CN 179 Trenton, NJ 08666; Mr. Thomas L. Wright Coordinator Technical Support New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles CN 179 Trenton NJ 08666; Dear Mr. Wright: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1994, t Robert Hellmuth of this agency requesting an opinion whether brush guards offered as accessories for Range Rovers and installed in front of headlamp units are in violation of Standard No. 108. Our letter is based upon the configurations of 'brush bars' depicted as accessory equipment in a 1994 Range Rover brochure. The brochure notes that brush bars 'may be illegal for on-road use in some states. Please check local regulations before purchase, installation, or use.' We note that this advisory applies to the rear lamp guards as well. The purpose of the brush bar is to offer protection to the grille, radiator, and front and rear lamps, and it does so by incorporating three slender horizontal bars in front of the lenses of the front and rear lamps. Paragraph S7.8.5 of Standard No. 108 states that headlamps when activated 'shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens.' The lamp guard portion of the brush bar is the type of 'other feature . . . in front of the lens' that is prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a Range Rover could not be displayed for sale and sold with a brush bar installed unless the lamp guards had been removed. This should present no problem as, according to the brochure, the 'lamp protectors are easily removable for cleaning and maintenance.' In our view, the proper time for installation of the lamp protectors is when the vehicle begins to be used off-road. Although there is no similar direct prohibition in Standard No. 108 applicable to other vehicle lamps, the parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps are required to conform with the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lamp guards are in place. This is based upon two paragraphs of the standard. S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps from meeting the required photometric output. S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of supplementary motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment. The guards are designed for maintenance by the owner, and their installation by the owner after purchase of the Range Rover would not be in violation of Federal law, even if installed for on-road use. Operation of the Range Rover is subject only to State law, and a State may forbid on-road use of a Range Rover with the lamp guards installed if it so chooses. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2393OpenMr. Bing Johnson, 135 Jade Cove Drive, Roswell, GA 30075; Mr. Bing Johnson 135 Jade Cove Drive Roswell GA 30075; Dear Mr. Johnson: This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1976, in which you as about our regulations concerning the modification of 'vans' to make them suitable for camping. The modifications you propose to make include the installation of plumbing, water, electricity, and additional seating.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1381 *et seq.) prohibits the manufacture, offer for sale, sale, introduction in interstate commerce or importation of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. This prohibition does not apply (except for importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Under these provisions, you are responsible for the compliance of any vehicle that you modify up to and including the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale.; The manufacturer must comply with all applicable safety standard established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). His certification appears on a completed vehicle. It would be your responsibility to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards after your modification. Under Part 567 of our regulations, you must attach a label to the vehicle that states that, as altered, the vehicle continued to conform to the standards.; From the description of the modification you describe, it appears tha you might affect the compliance of the vehicle with the following standards: Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, and Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. It should be noted that any additional weight created by your modifications or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.; We also would point out that if you modify a Ford 'Econoline' in al probability you would change the vehicle classification from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle. This should be noted on the certification label that you attach to the vehicle.; I have enclosed an information sheet that explains where you may obtai copies of these regulations.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3428OpenRichard E. Jenkins, Esq., Assistant Patent Counsel, Burlington Industries, Inc., Greensboro, NC 27420; Richard E. Jenkins Esq. Assistant Patent Counsel Burlington Industries Inc. Greensboro NC 27420; Dear Mr. Jenkins: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117). Specifically, you asked if the addition of 'edger fabric strips', pursuant to a process covered by U.S. Patent 4,196,764, would violate the prohibition in section S5.2.2(b) of Standard No. 117 against adding belts to retreaded passenger car tires.; The described process is prohibited by section S5,2.2(b) (sic), becaus it is clearly adding a belt to the tire.; In the abstract of the subject patent, which you included in you request for an interpretation, is the following statement: 'The invention relates to the use of reinforcing cords associated with the pneumatic tire . . ., and the method of applying such reinforcing cords woven in a warp and weft relationship cut in a bias shape to form a belt....' Similarly, in the *Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments* section of the patent, Section 3 begins, 'The essence of my invention is achieved by providing an extra belt....' Hence, the patent itself states that this process involves the addition of a belt to retread tires. Such an addition is expressly forbidden by section S5.2.2(b) of Standard 117, 'No retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing on which a belt or ply, or part thereof, is added or replaced during processing.'; Your letter stated that this edger fabric should not be considered belt for purposes of the Standard, because the addition of the edger makes a retreaded tire safer and longer lasting. While you may be correct concerning the performance of 'edger fabric,' the Standard as currently written does not permit its use. If you wish, however, you may file a petition for rulemaking requesting this agency to amend Standard 117 to permit the addition of a belt such as edger fabric by following the requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). If you choose to do so, please include all data showing that the addition of this extra belt makes the retreaded tire safer, and that the edger fabric belt would be compatable (sic) with the existing cords of the casing that is used.; Finally, let me point out that Standard 117 applies only to retreade *passenger car* tires. There is no safety standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and the use of this patented process on those tires would not violate any requirements of this agency.; Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff sends his regards. 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.