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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam3980OpenMr. Richard H. Lucki, U.S. Factory Representative, PEUGEOT, U.S. Technical Research Company, 33 Garland Way, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Richard H. Lucki U.S. Factory Representative PEUGEOT U.S. Technical Research Company 33 Garland Way Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Lucki: This responds to your letter of March 7, 1985, concerning Standard No 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. I regret the delay in our response. You noted that sections S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) of the standard require a seat belt warning system that conforms to S7.3 of the standard to be installed at each front outboard seating position of automatic restraint-equipped cars that have manual belts also at those positions. You pointed out that S7.3, however, only sets requirements for a warning system for the driver's seating position. You asked whether the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) can be met by providing a warning system conforming to S7.3 at only the driver's seating position. The answer is that those requirements can be met by a warning system for the driver only.; In December 1974 (39 FR 42692), the agency amended Standard No. 208 t establish new safety belt warning system requirements for vehicles manufactured after February 24, 1975. As discussed in the preamble, the agency decided against requiring a warning system at both the driver's seating position and the right front passenger's position. Instead, the agency adopted a requirement in S7.3(a) for a warning system at only the driver's seating position. (In July 1977 (42 FR 34299), the agency renumbered S7.3(a) to become the current S7.3).; In July 1976 (41 FR 29715), the agency proposed language concerning th safety belt warning system in automatic restraint-equipped cars. The proposed language was subsequently adopted, on July 5, 1977 (49 FR 34299), in S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The agency explained in the preamble of the July 1976 notice that the proposed safety belt warning system was to parallel the existing requirements for passenger cars. Thus, the intent was to require a warning system for only the driver's position. Requiring a warning system for the driver's position only is also consistent with the separate warning system requirement set in S4.5.3.3(b) for automatic belts. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a warning system only for the driver's position.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2387OpenMr. W. M. Albergotti, Manager, Gibbes Machinery Co., Assembly-Blossom-Park & Wheat Streets, P.O. Box 648, Columbia, SC 29202; Mr. W. M. Albergotti Manager Gibbes Machinery Co. Assembly-Blossom-Park & Wheat Streets P.O. Box 648 Columbia SC 29202; Dear Mr. Albergotti: This responds to your August 3, 1976, request for guidance i establishing a basis for certification to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, in the case of a truck whose frame and wheelbase is increased by 36 inches. You stated that, in this case, you will not complete the vehicle, but you ask what your responsibilities would be if you completed the vehicle with a used body that was provided by a dealer or a private party.; Because you are modifying an incomplete vehicle by extension of th frame and wheelbase but not completing it, you are considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of certification (49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages). Under Part 568, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer is required to pass along the incomplete vehicle document that accompanies the chassis-cab, and to furnish an addendum to it if the validity of the statements in the document has been affected by modifications you made.; Because you would move the rear axles and thereby affect the air brak system, you may need to furnish an addendum to indicate what statements in the document concerning Standard No. 121 should be changed. Assuming, for example, that the General Motors' document states that the vehicle conforms to the standard as long as no changes are made and the center of gravity location is limited, you must determine whether the changes you made have affected the validity of this statement. If the person who completes the vehicle could continue to observe the limitations established by General Motors in the incomplete vehicle document and produce a conforming vehicle, no addendum would be necessary. If, on the other hand, your modifications require new directions to the final stage manufacturer, an addendum must be added.; Although you asked only about compliance with Standard No. 121, i should be noted that a change in the vehicle's wheelbase could also affect compliance with other standards and could require a modification of the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating and Gross Axle Weight Ratings of the vehicle.; If you complete a vehicle for a dealer or an owner, you would b considered the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore be required to certify its conformity with all applicable standards. This requirement is set forth in S 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403). The Act requires that manufacturers exercise 'due care' to ensure that their products conform to the standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the availability of test equipment, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.; As a general response to your question, if testing facilities are no available to an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, or the cost of his testing a vehicle directly to the requirements of Standard No. 121 is prohibitive, such a company should develop an alternative method of determining that his alterations do not take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. These methods might include testing of typical installations by independent contractors working with associations of companies such as the Truck Body Equipment Association, engineering calculations by yourself or your brake and axle suppliers, or copying of installations that have been approved by chassis manufacturers.; With regard to the use of a used body, the NHTSA considers the mountin of a used body on a new chassis to be the manufacture of a new vehicle. Thus, the completed vehicle must be certified to all applicable standards, including Standard No. 121. In order to do this, you must know the center of gravity of the loaded body in order to determine whether it would, when mounted, exceed the limitations that appear in the incomplete vehicle document on the subject on center-of-gravity height. In the absence of any data, it would seem that a calculation of the center of gravity could be made, provided that due care is exercised.; Thank you for your responsible approach to meeting the requirements o the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Your letter to the NHTSA is an indication of your diligence in meeting your responsibility to exercise due care.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5442OpenMary B. Falls, Esq. Sherrard & Roe 424 Church Street, Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37219; Mary B. Falls Esq. Sherrard & Roe 424 Church Street Suite 2000 Nashville TN 37219; "Dear Ms. Falls: This responds to your request for an interpretation o whether, in replacing stolen vehicle identification number (VIN) plates as prescribed by Tennessee state law, your client, Nissan, would conform to this agency's requirements concerning VINs. The answer is Nissan would not violate our requirements when it replaces the stolen 'VIN plate.' However, there may be other aspects of replacing stolen VIN plates that are under the U.S. Department of Justice's law enforcement jurisdiction. By way of background, Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements, requires manufacturers to assign a VIN to each motor vehicle, to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. S4.5 of the standard specifies that VINs shall appear on a permanent part of the vehicle or on a separate label or plate, called the 'VIN plate.' S4.6 requires the VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR to be included in the passenger compartment, and manufacturers typically meet S4.6 by placing the VIN plate on the vehicle's dashboard. Your letter explained that Nissan manufactures cars and light trucks in Tennessee, and leases these vehicles. Sometimes, the VIN plate in the passenger compartment is stolen from the leased vehicle, but the vehicle is otherwise not tampered with. You stated that: Section 55-5111 of Tennessee Code Annotated provides that it is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to buy, sell, offer for sale, or possess a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial, engine, or transmission number or other distinguishing number or identification mark or number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. In addition, 55-5-112 provides that the owner of an original engine, serial, engine, or transmission, or 'other number or mark' may restore such number or mark pursuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety. You asked whether Nissan, the vehicle owner, would be 'in full compliance' with NHTSA's regulations if Nissan replaced stolen VIN plates in accordance with Tennessee law. In response to your question, we note that Standard No. 115 applies only to new motor vehicles. In the event a VIN plate is stolen from a leased (i.e., used) motor vehicle, NHTSA has no authority to require that any party replace the VIN plate. Thus, under NHTSA's regulations, if the VIN plate is stolen from a used vehicle, Nissan, the owner, may use its discretion whether to replace the VIN plate. However, please note that there could be other implications under Federal law about replacing stolen VIN plates. The U.S. Department of Justice has jurisdiction over stolen VIN plates as a law enforcement matter. Therefore, I suggest that you consult with the Justice Department about possible Federal law enforcement implications of replacing the stolen VIN plates. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2774OpenMr. Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr., Volkswagen of America, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Suite 2450, Washington, DC 20024; Mr. Philip A. Hutchinson Jr. Volkswagen of America 475 L'Enfant Plaza S.W. Suite 2450 Washington DC 20024; Dear Mr. Hutchinson: This responds to your January 30, 1978, request for confirmation tha no requirement in S 581.5(c) of the Part 581 *Bumper Standard* limits damage to the supporting ribs inside a plastic bumper face bar component or to the bumper face bar reinforcement component of the bumper system that lies within and reinforces the bumper face bar itself. You also requested confirmation that bumper 'end cuffs' are part of a bumper face bar if they are impacted by the impact ridge of the pendulum test device.; As we understand your description of the bumper reinforcement, it i not a bumper face bar, an exterior surface of the vehicle, or one of the other regulated portions of the vehicle. Therefore, it would not be regulated by the standard.; Internal deformation or cracking of the bumper face bar component doe not violate the provisions of S 581.5(3) as long as the dent and set requirements of (c)(11) are otherwise met.; 'Bumper face bar' is defined in S4 as 'any component of the bumpe system that contacts the impact ridge of the pendulum test device.' Protective ends or cuffs on a steel bumper face bar are considered components of the bumper system and, if contacted by the impact ridge of the pendulum test device, qualify under the definition as a portion of the bumper face bar subject to the same damageability limits as the rest of the bumper face bar.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0749OpenMr. John Forbes, Research Associate, Consumer Research Center, College of Business Administration, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00931; Mr. John Forbes Research Associate Consumer Research Center College of Business Administration University of Puerto Rico Rio Piedras Puerto Rico 00931; Dear Mr. Forbes: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1972, raising certai questions concerning the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573).; You ask whether the amendments made by sections 4(a) and (c) of Publi Law 91-265 took effect on November 28, 1970 or later. Section 4(d) of that law specified, as you note, that these sections take effect 180 days after the enactment of the Act, unless the Secretary of Transportation determined that a later date was in the public interest. No such determination was made, and the sections took effect 180 days after the Act's enactment. However, our computation shows that 180 days after May 22 is November 18, not November 28.; You ask if Owners Lists (49 CFR 573.6), including vehicl identification numbers, can be obtained by NHTSA and transmitted to your organization. The NHTSA would not consider it appropriate to require manufacturers to submit owner's (sic) lists to it for purposes not involved in the enforcement of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We would not consider the study you wish to perform to be within this purpose.; You also ask if we can furnish you copies of Quarterly Reports (49 CF 573.5) at least as they relate to cars sold in Puerto Rico. Quarterly reports submitted by manufacturers, except for the production figures submitted pursuant to section 573.5(b), are considered to be public documents and are available for public inspection. Due to the large number of reports we receive, however, we can furnish copies only if the precise reports desired are specified. The reports do not disclose the geographical location of the vehicles involved.; With reference to your request for the latest version of the leaflet 'Motor Vehicle Safety Defect Recall Campaigns,' I have enclosed the volume which provides information for the complete year 1971, and a new volume dealing with January-March 1972.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1508OpenMr. George D. Green, Director of Sales, JacKnife Division, Breeze Corporations, Inc., 700 Liberty Avenue, Union, NJ 07083; Mr. George D. Green Director of Sales JacKnife Division Breeze Corporations Inc. 700 Liberty Avenue Union NJ 07083; Dear Mr. Green: This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1974, asking whether person installing on a new vehicle a device called the Breeze Jacknife Control are required to certify the conformity of the vehicle to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. You indicate such a device would ordinarily be installed after the truck leaves the factory.; Persons who install components on or otherwise modify complete vehicles before their sale to a purchaser for a purpose other than resale may be vehicle alterers under NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568), and if so are required to certify that the vehicle as altered conforms to applicable standards by attaching to it a label containing specified information. A label must be attached when the alteration either involves components which are not readily attachable or whose installation renders invalid the vehicle's stated weight ratings. Modifications to a completed vehicle after its purchase for purposes other than resale, however, do not give rise to any certification or labeling requirements.; Copies of the Certification regulations and information on obtainin copies of all NHTSA requirements are enclosed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3535OpenLawrence W. Gebhardt, Gebhardt & Smith, Suite 1544, The World Trade Center, Baltimore, MD 21202; Lawrence W. Gebhardt Gebhardt & Smith Suite 1544 The World Trade Center Baltimore MD 21202; Dear Mr. Gebhardt: This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1981, in which yo raised several questions concerning the application of the exemption for dealer-to-dealer transfers of new cars. We are sorry for the delay in responding. Specifically you wanted to know if a dealer transferring a new vehicle with fifty miles registered on the odometer to another dealer was required to issue an odometer disclosure statement. You also requested that the agency provide you with cases subsequent to *Lair v. Lewis Service Center*, 428 F. Supp. 778 (D.Neb. 1977) which address the enforceability of the exemptions to Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ('Act') (15 U.S.C. 1981 *et seq.*); Purchasers of motor vehicles rely heavily on the odometer reading as a index of the condition and value of the vehicle. The purpose of the Federal odometer laws is to establish certain safeguards against odometer tampering and to provide purchasers of motor vehicles an accurate statement of the mileage traveled by a motor vehicle. Section 408 of the Act requires that each transferor of a motor vehicle furnish to the transferee a written statement certifying the accuracy of the mileage. 15 U.S.C. 1988. The Odometer Disclosure Requirements specifically detail the information that must be disclosed. 49 CFR 580.4. However, the agency has determined that the exemption of certain transactions and vehicles is consistent with the purposes and scope of the Act. 49 CFR 580.5.; 49 CFR 580.5(b) exempts all transfers of a new vehicle prior to th first transfer to a customer who actually plans to use the vehicle from the Odometer Disclosure Requirements. The exemption applies to the dealer-to-dealer transfer of new vehicles regardless of the odometer reading. However, the exemption does not preclude a dealer from requiring the transferring dealer to certify the accuracy of the mileage.; The exemption is consistent with the purpose and scope of the Federa odometer laws. It is customary for dealers to transfer new vehicles to other dealers who plan to immediately resell the vehicle to a customer. Generally, the frequency of odometer fraud in these transactions is minimal. Indeed, prior to the transfer of a vehicle to a consumer, the odometer reading should only reflect the mileage accumulated while the vehicle is being demonstrated to a potential buyer or driven a short distance, which might be occasioned by a typical dealer-to-dealer transfer. We are unable to establish by issuing an opinion letter what the limit of such mileage incidental to the sale of a new car should be. If a dealer doubts the accuracy of the odometer reading, he can readily inspect the car for evidence of odometer tampering. In the absence of such evidence, the first dealer to sell the vehicle to a non-resale purchaser should be free to certify the mileage as accurate. The agency therefore views the issuance of odometer disclosure statements in such dealer-to-dealer transactions as unnecessarily burdensome on dealers.; In addition to *Lair v. Lewis Service Center*, the agency has knowledg of one other case *Romeri Trucking, Inc. v. Boise Kenworth Sale*, No. 80-1252 (D. Iowa, February 11, 1981), that addresses the issue of the enforceability of 49 CFR 580.5(a)(1). To date the agency has not issued a formal opinion on either case.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1158OpenMr. James W. Livsey, The Southern Connecticut Gas Co., 880 Broad Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06609; Mr. James W. Livsey The Southern Connecticut Gas Co. 880 Broad Street Bridgeport Connecticut 06609; Dear Mr. Livsey: This is in reply to your letter to Mr. David Snyder of this agenc regarding information on tests performed on recapped tires, specifically, data comparing failure characteristics of retreaded tires with those of new tires.; The NHTSA does not presently have test data of the specific type yo request. We are attempting to obtain that data through research contracts with outside parties, and results of that research, when they are received, will be placed in the rulemaking docket regarding retreaded tires. Other test data for retreaded tires have been placed in this docket (Docket No. 1-8), which is open for public inspection at NHTSA headquarters, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.; Certain studies have been conducted on the failure rates of tires, an some comparative data have been complied. One volume with which we are familiar summarizes studies which provided information of this type. It is, Brenner and Harvey, Tire Use Survey, the Physical Condition, Use and Performance of Passenger Car Tires in the United States of America, NBS Technical Note 528, (National Bureau of Standards U.S. Department of Commerce). Copies are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. It should be ordered by SD Catalog No. C13.46:528, prepaid, at 60 a copy.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3165OpenMr. E. M. Ryan, Ward Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 849, Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. E. M. Ryan Ward Industries Inc. P.O. Box 849 Highway 65 South Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your October 8, 1979, letter asking whether your ne bus design will comply with Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. The window exit that you plan to install in the bus would slide open rather than push out and would be operated by a squeeze-type force application that is parallel to the horizontal centerline of the bus.; Standard No. 217 requires buses to be equipped with emergency exit that comply with a variety of requirements. In the case of window exits, the force application for opening them depends upon the location of the release mechanism. For example, the required force application in the high force access region, according to the standard (S5.3.2), is straight and perpendicular to the exit surface.; In applying the above requirement to your vehicle, it appears that you bus would not comply with the standard. From the pictures that you enclosed with your letter, it appears that your release mechanism falls in the high force access region. If so, the force application for opening the exit is in the incorrect direction as specified by the standard. Further, your bus would use window exits that slide open rather than push out. Although, sliding emergency exits are not prohibited by the standard, they must comply with all of the standard's requirements. Also, they must be capable of complying when the non-exit half of the window is either open or closed. The agency prefers the use of push-out emergency exits, because they are less likely to 'bind up' during a side impact than sliding emergency exits.; The standard was written in its present form to provide uniformity o emergency exits in buses. A uniform exit system can help prevent confusion during accidents and facilitate emergency exit of vehicles. The vehicle that you plan to build would be unlike other buses now in operation with respect to emergency exits. The NHTSA does not think that this would be desirable or in the interest of safety.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3470OpenDick Sorensen, Brekhus Buick-International, Box 1357, Rapid City, SC 57701; Dick Sorensen Brekhus Buick-International Box 1357 Rapid City SC 57701; Dear Mr. Sorensen: This is in response to your letter of September 10, 1981, in which yo requested information on the Federal odometer disclosure requirements and specifically on their applicability to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 16,000 pounds. I have enclosed a copy of Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1981 et seq.) which sets forth the Federal law pertaining to odometers. Section 404 of the Act prohibits any person from altering the odometer of any motor vehicle including trucks of more than 16,000 pounds GVWR.; I have also enclosed a copy of the odometer disclosure requirements (4 CFR Part 580). I have highlighted in red the exemption that applies to large trucks. The agency found that purchasers of these trucks do not rely on the odometer as an indicator of their mileage and, therefore, exempted them from the disclosure requirements. Before you decide whether or not to issue odometer disclosure statements for these trucks, I would like to alert you to the fact that at least one court has held that the agency exceeded its authority in fashioning this exemption and has declared it void. *Lair v. Lewis Service Center*, 428 F.Supp. 778 (D.Neb. 1977). The holding is not binding on any other court and the agency believes the exemption is valid. Nevertheless, you should be aware that should the issue arise again, another court could take a similar view.; I hope that this information is useful to you. If you have any furthe questions, please do not hesitate to write.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant 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.