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: aiam1905OpenMr. Steven W. Tarta, 274 LaFayette Avenue, Hawthorne, NJ 07506; Mr. Steven W. Tarta 274 LaFayette Avenue Hawthorne NJ 07506; Dear Mr. Tarta: This is in response to your letter of April 5, 1975, asking whethe your client is an 'alterer, intermediate manufacturer, or final manufacturer or all of the aforesaid.' You described several different types of operations your client performs.; Several distinctions must be drawn to answer the questions you hav asked. These are set forth in Parts 567 and 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.; 1. An alterer differs from an intermediate manufacturer or a final stage manufacturer in that the alterer does his work on a completed, previously certified vehicle, while the other two categories work on incomplete vehicles. ('Incomplete vehicle' is defined in Part 568.); 2. An intermediate manufacturer differs from a final-stage manufacture in that the former does not complete the vehicle, while the latter does, and certifies it. An intermediate manufacturer typically adds axles, lengthens or reinforces frames, and/or extends air brake lines as necessary in conjunction with these operations. The final-stage manufacturer typically builds a body and mounts it on a chassis-cab, chassis- cowl, or bare chassis to make a truck, bus, or motor home. He also might add a fifth wheel to a chassis-cab to make a truck tractor.; 3. Repair and refinishing of existing bodies (*i.e.*, those already i use) normally do not bring a person into our regulatory scheme at all, since it generally applies to the manufacture of new vehicles. Under the 1974 Amendments to the Vehicle Safety Act, however, the rendering inoperative of devices or elements of design installed in conformity with a safety standard, even on a used vehicle, is prohibited.; 4. With respect to 'transferring bodies to and from new and use vehicles,' our interpretive rule generally has been that the chassis determines whether a vehicle is new or used. Thus, an old body put onto a new chassis constitutes a new vehicle for purposes of the standards and associated regulations (including certification), while a new body put onto a used chassis is considered a used vehicle (made at the time the chassis was completed).; 5. Alterers, intermediate manufacturers, and final-stage manufacturer share the characteristic of doing work that is more than the installation of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or work that alters the weight ratings of the vehicles. Other persons who do more minor operations (possibly 'installing grill guards' on your list would fit this description) are outside the direct regulatory scheme. Of course, any vehicle must end up certified by someone, and any manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair businesses (probably anyone except the owner, in practice) are under the ban against rendering mandated safety equipment inoperative.; With these distinctions in mind, you should be able to determine th application of the standards and regulations to your client. If after studying this and the regulations you still need help, please let me know.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5415OpenMr. Scott R. Dennison Consultant Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 S. 106th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214; Mr. Scott R. Dennison Consultant Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 S. 106th Street Milwaukee WI 53214; "Dear Mr. Dennison: We have received your letter of May 31, 1994 petitioning for a temporary exemption from paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 on behalf of Excalibur Automobile Corporation (the Federal Express Airbill indicates that it was mailed July 9, 1994). The petition does not, as required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7), set forth the reasons why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety. You make the statement that 'the door hinge system incorporated in the Excalibur Cobra has been tested to exceed the FMVSS by over four times the required strength.' Please provide a copy of the test report that demonstrates this performance. Under 555.6(d)(1)(iv), a petitioner is required to provide 'the results of any tests conducted on the vehicle demonstrating that its overall level of safety exceeds that which is achieved by conformity to the standards.' The second page of the petition references a 'Plymouth Sunbird' vehicle for model year 1994. We assume you mean Pontiac, as we are unaware of any Plymouth with this model name. The timing of your letter raises the inference that Excalibur may presently be manufacturing convertibles equipped with manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Please inform us as to the number of Cobras that the company may have produced on or after September 1, 1989, that were equipped with driver and passenger manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Finally, it has been customary for petitions to be signed by an officer of the manufacturer. We have accepted petitions signed by foreign manufacturers but submitted by a person resident in the United States, on the manufacturer's behalf. Your use of Excalibur's letterhead leads to an assumption that you have the authority to make the representations of the petition, but your title of 'Consultant' does not identify you as a corporate officer. We would appreciate an explanation of your relationship to Excalibur, or, alternatively, the signature of a corporate officer on the petition. We shall hold the petition in abeyance until we have heard further from you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4910OpenMr. Martin L. Marinoff 103 Turner Lane Hendersonville, NC 28739; Mr. Martin L. Marinoff 103 Turner Lane Hendersonville NC 28739; Dear Mr. Marinoff: This responds to your letter asking about Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You stated that you believe the standard requires vehicles to have a warning light system that indicates loss of pressure or low fluid level in the braking system and asked if this belief is correct. Your understanding about Standard No. 105 is correct. I have enclosed a copy of that standard for your information. The requirements for brake system indicator lamps are set forth at section S5.3 of the standard. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam5602OpenMr. William Meurer President Green Motorworks 5228 Vineland Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91601; Mr. William Meurer President Green Motorworks 5228 Vineland Avenue North Hollywood CA 91601; "Dear Mr. Meurer: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995 responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process. You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally made to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c). 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j)) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency 'decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events.' Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an importer such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain 'a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation.' The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purpose for which it was imported. The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Management District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project. Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point, when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessary to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs. Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must 'at all times retain title to and possession of' vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and 'shall not lease' them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bees to BART for the duration of the demonstration project. I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes 'on terms NHTSA decides are necessary.' Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is not required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers. The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the proposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, NHTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest. If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0400OpenMr. Philip H. Taft, Director, Tire Retreading Institute, National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc., 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Mr. Philip H. Taft Director Tire Retreading Institute National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association Inc. 1343 L Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20005; Dear Mr. Taft: This is in response to your letter of June 29, 1971, in which you as who would be the manufacturer of a retreaded tire, when the tire is manufactured by a process, known as 'cure out'. You explain this process as one in which one retread shop will process a casing to the point where it would be placed in a mold for curing. The tire is then sent to a second shop for curing and subsequently returned as a finished product to the first retread shop.; You indicate that one of your members is now involved in a legal case and the outcome apparently hinges on who is legally responsible for the performance of the tire.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C S1381 *et seq.*) and motor vehicle safety standards and regulation issued pursuant to the Act (49 CFR S551 *et seq.*) the manufacturer in the 'cure out' process as described above, would be the second retread shop, the one which produces the finished product. It is he who would be required to assume responsibility for the compliance of the tire with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, 'Retreaded Pneumatic Tires', and it is also he who would be assigned a code mark pursuant to the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574).; However, the person we consider the manufacturer for purposes of th Act and regulations issued pursuant to the Act, may not be responsible for the tire in a civil suit, and our opinion is not intended to speak to the issue if liability in a civil action.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5252OpenThomas G. Cehelnik, Ph.D. Accutron T.C.S., Inc. Box 821 RD 1 Scottsdale, PA 15683; Thomas G. Cehelnik Ph.D. Accutron T.C.S. Inc. Box 821 RD 1 Scottsdale PA 15683; "Dear Dr. Cehelnik: We are replying to your letter of September 28 1993, requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (you will find the complete text of this standard at 49 CFR 571.108). Your company has developed 'a light system to indicate the deceleration of the vehicle.' You have been informed that this agency is 'investigating the safety of such a device,' and 'that lights that indicate braking must be `steady- burning.'' The agency is not investigating deceleration warning systems, thus I am unable to provide you with 'information on the status of the safety investigation' as you requested. Paragraph S5.5.10 of Standard No. 108 applies to all lamps provided as original motor vehicle equipment, and lists the lamps that may flash, such as turn signal lamps, but this list does not include stop lamps. A final catchall subparagraph (d) requires that ' a ll other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning,' and this includes stop lamps. You also asked 'is it and will it become legal to turn on a warning or stop light that indicates the particular dynamic state of the vehicle?' and ' m ust such a system necessarily be considered as a brake light?' We have encountered some deceleration warning systems that activate the stop lamps by means other than application of the service brake pedal. This is prohibited by paragraph S5.5.4 which states that ' t he stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes.' We have interpreted this as meaning that the stop lamps may be activated only by application of the service brakes, and that they may not be activated by reduced pressure on the accelerator pedal. A stop lamp can only be operated to indicate that the brake pedal has been applied for the purpose of slowing or stopping a vehicle. You may find of interest a letter of interpretation which I enclose (letter to Larry Snowhite, January 25, 1990) which expresses more fully our views on this subject. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2597OpenMr. Francis Levett, Independent Coach Corporation, Box 73, Lawrence, NY 11559; Mr. Francis Levett Independent Coach Corporation Box 73 Lawrence NY 11559; Dear Mr. Levett: This is in further reply to your phone call of May 12, 1977, to Davi Soule regarding the new school buses you ordered last November. You asked whether the buses that will be delivered to you will meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which became effective April 1, 1977.; The applicability of Federal standards is determined by the date o manufacture of the vehicle. For vehicles that are completed by mounting a body on a chassis, the manufacturer can treat as the date of manufacture, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (as defined in 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*), the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. Since the chassis of the vehicles you ordered were manufactured prior to April 1, the completed vehicle need not meet the requirements of the new school bus safety standards.; Any arrangements for having your buses meet the new Federa requirements in this instance would have to be made by contract with the Wayne Corporation, builders of your bus bodies.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0050OpenMr. Jack C. Green, President, Green and Green Manufacturing Company, 2007 Lancaster-Hutchins Road, P. O. Box 460, Lancaster, TX 75146; Mr. Jack C. Green President Green and Green Manufacturing Company 2007 Lancaster-Hutchins Road P. O. Box 460 Lancaster TX 75146; Dear Mr. Green: Thank you for your letter of February 19, 1968, to Secretary Boyd concerning the location of rear identification lamps on boat trailers.; Standard No. 108 permits rear identification lamps to be mounted a optional heights. Therefore, lamps mounted on extension brackets or add-on crossmembers would be permissible. We would also point out that rear identification lamps are required only on those trailers that are 80 or more inches in overall width.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, Roger H. Compton, Director, Office of Standards on Acciden Avoidance, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4013OpenMr. Roger C. Fairchild, TechLaw, Inc., 12030 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 200, Reston, VA 22093; Mr. Roger C. Fairchild TechLaw Inc. 12030 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 200 Reston VA 22093; Dear Mr. Fairchild: This responds to your letter of June 13, 1985, to Stephen P. Wood o this office, concerning the importation and assembly of chassis-cab units by your client. You asked about the division of certification responsibilities between your client and the manufacturer of the chassis-cab units. In addition, you asked about the accuracy of a summary you have prepared of our safety standards. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; According to the information provided in your letter and in subsequen telephone conversations, the chassis-cab units would be shipped from a British manufacturer to your client with the occupant compartment or cab, and other major parts, such as the engine and transmission, individually assembled. In addition, the British manufacturer would also affix the vehicle identification number (VIN). Your client would then assemble the vehicles by bolting the parts together with ordinary tools, and add a fifth wheel or hydraulic/dump assembly to the back of the completed vehicles. You said that the British manufacturer of these chassis-cab units has agreed to assume legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.).; Under the Vehicle Safety Act, certification of compliance of a moto vehicle must be by the manufacturer or importer of an incomplete or a completed vehicle. Based upon the facts given above, your client would be importing items of motor vehicle equipment and not motor vehicles, since the various parts have not been assembled to form an incomplete or complete motor vehicle. The British manufacturer should certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. Your client would be assembling the various parts and completing the vehicles by adding work-performing components. Therefore, your client would be responsible for certifying the completed vehicles and for assuming the duties and liabilities imposed by the Act. An information sheet briefly describing those duties is enclosed.; If the British manufacturer assembled the chassis-cab unit parts int an incomplete vehicle before exporting them, then the vehicle would be covered by the certification requirements of Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages* (49 CFR Part 568). Section 568.7(a) provides that an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in this case the British company, can assume responsibility for certifying the vehicle, as long as it accepts all of the legal responsibilities for manufacturers set forth in the Vehicle Safety Act. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer would then be responsible for affixing the certification plate required by Part 567.5(e).; You also ask for our approval of a summary of National Highway Traffi Safety Administration safety standards and regulations applicable to heavy duty trucks. As you correctly stated in your letter, the agency cannot pre- approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Under section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), a manufacturer has the responsibility to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have, however, reviewed your summary and find it to be a reasonable description of the major requirements of the various safety standards applicable to heavy trucks. As you recognize, a manufacturer cannot rely on a summary, but must base its certification on a vehicle's compliance with all of the requirements of the applicable safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1211OpenMr. Erik Sundelin, Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag, S- 23101 Trelleborg, Sweden; Mr. Erik Sundelin Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag S- 23101 Trelleborg Sweden; Dear Mr. Sundelin: This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1973, in which you as whether certain radial passenger car tires may be imported if they are tested to see that they meet DOT requirements (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR 571.109), and if the information required pursuant to paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109, which does not presently appear on the tires, is branded with a hot stamp on the tire sidewalls.; The NHTSA does not view with approval the importation into the Unite States of passenger car tires that were not originally designed and manufactured for importation into the United States. Although Standard No. 109 as presently written does not prohibit the branding of information required by the standard onto the tire, as long as the information becomes part of the actual sidewall material, it is difficult for us to understand how a manufacturer can, in branding the necessary information, readily assume that the information is in fact reflective of the tire's performance capability. To stipulate as you do that the tires will be tested to Standard No. 109 is not responsive to the issue, for in the case of the Standard No. 109 tests, which are destructive in nature, only sample testing is conducted, and the tires actually imported are not themselves tested. Consequently, the testing of tires by a manufacturer that he desires to brand and import into the United States will only provide reliable evidence of conformity if the manufacturer's testing is of uniform batches or lots.; A similar problem is presented by a manufacturer's branding onto th tire of the identification number required by Part 574. This number is required to be based on certain facts regarding the manufacture of the tire, the week and year of manufacture. Consequently, this information must be known to the manufacturer if his identification number is to be consistent with Part 574.; In summary, the NHTSA's position regarding the branding and subsequen importation of tires not originally manufactured for importation into the United States is that although the practice is not prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Standard No. 109, or the regulations regarding the importation of motor vehicle equipment (19 CFR 12.80), manufacturers who brand tires must base their representations of conformity to the standard and to the identification requirements on information which, in the exercise of due care, they know to be accurate. Because such conformity is not apparent from an examination of these tires or even from post-production testing you should be aware that the NHTSA may request documentation that supports any manufacturer's representations regarding conformity.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.