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: aiam4052OpenMr. Russell Thatcher, Director Mobility Assistance Program, Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510, Boston, MA 02116- 3969; Mr. Russell Thatcher Director Mobility Assistance Program Executive Office of Transportation and Construction Commonwealth of Massachusetts 10 Park Plaza Room 3510 Boston MA 02116- 3969; Dear Mr. Thatcher: Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1986, to NHTSA Regiona Administrator Jack Connors requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.; You explained that you are in the process of buying a number of van which will be outfitted with Republic Seating Corporation's Model D117 seats. You stated that questions have been raised about whether the safety belt placement on those seats complies with our standard. You enclosed a quarter-scale diagram of the seat in question showing the location of the safety belts and asked our opinion about whether the safety belt placement complies with our standard.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which thi agency enforces, it is the responsibility of a vehicle manufacturer to certify that its products comply with the requirements of our standards. This agency does not have the authority to approve a manufacturer's design plans. We can offer our opinion, but it is the manufacturer's obligation to ensure that the finished vehicle complies with all of the applicable standards.; The standard which affects the mounting angle for safety belts i Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. The drawing enclosed with your letters shows that the lap safety belt anchorage for this seat is installed on the frame of the seat. S4.3.1.3 of the standard provides:; >>>In an installation in which the seat belt anchorage is on the sea structure, the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage shall extend forward from that contact point at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 20 degrees and not more than 75 degrees.<<<; According to the drawing enclosed with your letter, the line from th seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the safety belt, on the outboard side of the seat, with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage is 75 degrees. If the outboard portion of the safety belt is installed in a completed vehicle in the location shown in the drawing it would meet the requirement of S4.3.1.3, since its mounting angle is not more than 75 degrees.; We cannot offer an opinion as to whether the inboard portion of th safety belt would comply with S4.3.1.3, since the mounting angle for that portion of the safety belt is not depicted in the drawing. I want to emphasize again, that this letter represents the opinion of the agency based on the facts you have presented. It is a manufacturer's responsibility under the Vehicle Safety Act to certify that its completed vehicle complies with our standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3797OpenJohn H. Schmidt, P.E., Certification Supervisor, Harley- Davidson Motor Co., Inc., 3700 W. Juneau Avenue, P.O. Box 653, Milwaukee, WI 53201; John H. Schmidt P.E. Certification Supervisor Harley- Davidson Motor Co. Inc. 3700 W. Juneau Avenue P.O. Box 653 Milwaukee WI 53201; Dear Mr. Schmidt: This responds to your February 6, 1984 letter to Roger Fairchild o this office, in which you asked whether your company may include on vehicle certification labels gross vehicle weight rating and gross axle weight rating information expressed in kilograms. The metric units would be used in addition to information expressed in pounds, with the English units appearing first on the label and the metric units following in parenthesis. Our certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) provide that this information is to be specified in pounds.; The inclusion of metric weight ratings in addition to the English unit specified in our regulation (with the English units appearing first) has previously been approved in an agency interpretation letter, a copy of which is enclosed. Therefore, your proposed certification labels are authorized under the certification regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2885OpenMr. Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr., Washington Representative, Volkswagen of America, Inc., 475 L'Enfant Plaza S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024; Mr. Philip A. Hutchinson Jr. Washington Representative Volkswagen of America Inc. 475 L'Enfant Plaza S.W. Washington D.C. 20024; Dear Mr. Hutchinson: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1978, concerning Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle identification number*. Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard are enclosed.; In confirmation of your meeting with Messrs. Carson, Erikson, an Schwartz, you are correct in stating that vehicle description section (VDS) informational content can change from model year, to model year even though the actual characters in the VDS remain the same. All changes in the informational content of the VDS must, of course, be submitted to the NHTSA as required in S6 of the standard.; As you point out in your letter, 'dividers' which would appear at th beginning and the end of the VIN would not be considered part of the VIN and, therefore, would not be regulated by the standard. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the dividers are neither alphabetic not numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.; In your meeting with NHTSA staff, you requested clarificatio concerning which manufacturer identifier should be used when the vehicle assembly is carried out by one company on behalf of another. In this instance, the manufacturer identifier of the company under whose authority the assembly is carried out and which maintains responsibility for the vehicle's compliance with safety standards should be used. You have also asked for a definition of the term 'transfer document.' A 'transfer document' will vary in content from manufacturer to manufacturer, but means the document(s) given to the owner of the vehicle for use when the vehicle is being titled.; We would also call to your attention proposed changes to the standar contained in the enclosed notice of proposed rulemaking. If the proposed changes are adopted, the check digit would be placed in the fourth position of the VIN, and the first and second characters of the VDS, which immediately follow the check digit, would be alphabetic.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1250OpenMr. Ray Hartman, Vice President, Engineering, Crown Coach Corporation, 2500 East Twelfth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021; Mr. Ray Hartman Vice President Engineering Crown Coach Corporation 2500 East Twelfth Street Los Angeles CA 90021; Dear Mr. Hartman: This is in reply to your letter of August 28, 1973, concerning th effective date of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. Your direct question is whether the effective date is the starting or completion date for the vehicle's components or the starting date for the vehicle.; Standard No. 121 applies to the vehicle and its effective dat therefore relates to the vehicle, rather than to any of its components. A vehicle completed after the effective date will have to meet the standard, even though it is equipped with a foundation brake system that was manufactured before the effective date.; The vehicle's completion date, rather than its starting date, is th date that determines whether it must conform to the standard. If your company manufactures its vehicles from the ground up, rather than installing a body on a vehicle built by another manufacturer, the relevant completion date is the date you complete your manufacturing operation. However, if you buy an incomplete vehicle, as defined in our regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568), and complete that vehicle, you may choose as the completion date for purposes of Standard No. 121 the date on which the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle finished his work, the date on which you completed the vehicle or any date in between.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4402OpenMr. G.T. Doe, General Manger - Product Design, Lotus Engineering, Ltd., Norwich, Norfolk, NR15 8EZ England, GREAT BRITAIN; Mr. G.T. Doe General Manger - Product Design Lotus Engineering Ltd. Norwich Norfolk NR15 8EZ England GREAT BRITAIN; Dear Mr. Doe: This responds to your letter in which you asked how the conversion of convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new two seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a 'factory manufactured and approved' hardtop conversion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216.; I would like to set the foundation for answering your specifi questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as 'a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is *not joined* at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.' In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that , 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer.; The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would no permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception.; Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on sellin nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or to a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certification of conformity from Lotus or the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certification of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have reason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requirements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR S567.7.; The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth i sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were:; 1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crus requirements of Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?; ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any ca that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the rollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216.; 2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provisio remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?; ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you ar referring. However, you stated in your letter, 'It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area.' The requirements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a 'designated seating position.' This term is defined in 49 CFR S571.3 as follows:; >>>'Designated seating position' means any plan view location capabl of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle 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.<<<; We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable o accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designated seating positions.; The required occupant restraint system would also be affected b converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purposes of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR S571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would *not* be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1600OpenMr. Roger J. Harris, President, Eagle Coach Company of Dallas, Inc., 5424 Gregg Street, Suite 109, Dallas, TX 75235; Mr. Roger J. Harris President Eagle Coach Company of Dallas Inc. 5424 Gregg Street Suite 109 Dallas TX 75235; Dear Mr. Harris: This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1974, asking about 'thos requirements which presently exist for limited volume manufacturers.'; I enclose a copy of an information sheet that tells where you ma obtain the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. No exceptions are automatically provided for limited volume manufacturers. Those whose total annual production is 10,000 units or less may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more standards upon the grounds that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship.; As a converter of production sedans into extended wheelbase vehicles and as a customizer of automobiles, your principal obligation is to insure that any new and previously untitled vehicle you sell and deliver to the ultimate purchaser conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars. This means that you should review the standards to determine whether your manufacturing operations affect conformity of any new vehicle as delivered to you that is certified by its manufacture as meeting Federal requirements. In any event, since your alterations consist of more than minor finishing operations you are required to attach the label described by Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7, a copy of which I also enclose.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0912OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, Factory Representative Office, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of October 2, 1972, concerning th requirements applicable to a seat belt installed as part of a restraint system conforming to S4.1.2.3 of Standard 208.; You are correct in reading S4.1.2.3 to provide that a seat belt capabl of meeting the injury criteria of Standard 208 is not required to meet Standard 209 except as provided in S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard 208.; We have under consideration a petition from the Japan Automobil Manufacturers Association to amend Standard 209 to reflect the exemption made in Standard 208. The agency's response to the petition will be issued shortly.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3328OpenJames. R. Clifton, P.O. Box 237, Bessemer, AL 35021; James. R. Clifton P.O. Box 237 Bessemer AL 35021; Dear Mr. Clifton: This is in response to your telephone conversation with Kathy DeMete of my staff on Tuesday, September 2, 1980. You asked for the status of section 580.5(a)(1) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. That section exempts from the odometer disclosure requirements anyone transferring a vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 16,000 pounds. That exemption is part of the regulation, originally issued in January 1973, which prescribes rules requiring a transferor of a motor vehicle to make a written disclosure to the transferee concerning the odometer reading and its accuracy.; In January 1977, the exemption was declared void by the United State District Court for the District of Nebraska on the grounds that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has exceeded its authority in fashioning the exemption. Notwithstanding the court's decision, the NHTSA believes that it has the authority to create exemptions for vehicles for which the odometer reading is not relevant. The exemption, consequently, remains a part of the odometer disclosure regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1315OpenHonorable Jack Edwards, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Jack Edwards House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Edwards: Your request for information on the Federal Odometer Disclosur regulation on behalf of Mr. Charles J. Fleming has been referred to me for reply.; I am enclosing a copy of the regulation which includes an example of a acceptable format. Other formats are acceptable if all the required information is included.; We are unable to advise Mr. Fleming about the effect of a particula typographical error without knowing its nature, but as a general matter a typographical error would not give rise to liability unless it were deceptive in a way which misleads a purchaser.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4117OpenMr. E. Brooks Harper, General Manager, Backstop, Inc., 240 Pegasus Avenue, Northvale, NJ 07647; Mr. E. Brooks Harper General Manager Backstop Inc. 240 Pegasus Avenue Northvale NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Harper: This responds to your letter asking whether installation of your touc sensitive reverse braking system called 'Backstop' on an air brake vehicle would conflict with any Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. According to your letter, Backstop is plumbed into the vehicle air brake system and wired to the back up light circuit. The system is activated only when reverse gear is engaged and works by instantly applying the vehicle brakes when the rear bumper is touched while reversing. Shifting to neutral or a forward gear returns the system to normal braking.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and is limited to the standards and regulations administered by NHTSA. You may wish to contact the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to the installation of Backstop.; NHTSA does not have any regulations covering a touch sensitive revers braking system such as Backstop. However, since installation of Backstop requires plumbing into the vehicle's air brake system and wiring into the vehicle's backup light circuit, it is possible that it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, and No. 108, *Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment*. For example, your letter states that a delay of four milliseconds is introduced to the air brake system response by the insertion of the double check valve in the control line. While this delay is very small, it could conceivably affect a vehicle's compliance with the timing requirements of sections S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 121 if the vehicle otherwise was at the edge of compliance. We suggest that you carefully consider whether installation of Backstop in the variety of current vehicles and vehicle configurations would affect compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards affected by the alteration. The specific certification requirements for alterers are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of Backstop would have no certification responsibilities, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Should a safety- related defect be discovered in your device, whethe by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 *et* *seq*. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; 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.