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: aiam5524OpenMr. Robert E. Fouts President Earl's Performance Products 189 W. Victoria St. Long Beach, CA 90805; Mr. Robert E. Fouts President Earl's Performance Products 189 W. Victoria St. Long Beach CA 90805; "Dear Mr. Fouts: This responds to your question whether the whip tes specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, can be interpreted to permit a modification to the test apparatus to facilitate your brake hose's meeting the whip test. As explained below, the answer is no. You describe your brake hose as made of 'extruded teflon armored with stainless steel braid.' You state your brake hose can meet all Standard No. 106 test specifications except for the whip test (See S6.3). The whip test specifies fastening the brake hose on a test apparatus at two ends and cycling for 35 hours. You state because of 'aggravated cyclic stress,' your brake hoses fail before 35 hours. To prevent such failures, you wish to add a 'whip dampener,' a movable 'spherical bearing enclosed in a machined housing', to the brake hose. In addition to the two ends, the whip test apparatus will mount the brake hose at the 'whip dampener.' You wish to know whether the whip test can be interpreted to permit mounting the brake hose at the 'whip dampener.' In our opinion, S6.3 cannot be interpreted to permit mounting the brake hose at the 'whip dampener.' S6.3.1 Apparatus specifies a test apparatus that mounts the brake hose at 'capped end fittings' on one end and 'open end fittings' on the other, and specifies no mounting points in between. Thus, a test apparatus that mounts the brake hose at a 'whip dampener,' which is not an end fitting, would not meet Standard No. 106. However, the issues raised in your letter have led us to consider amending the whip test to permit the 'whip dampener' when testing steel braided brake hoses. Accordingly, we will initiate rulemaking to further consider the issues. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0376OpenKenneth L. Harrigan, Esq., Messrs. Modrall, Seymour, Sperling, Roehl & Harris, Public Service Building, P.O. Box 2168, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; Kenneth L. Harrigan Esq. Messrs. Modrall Seymour Sperling Roehl & Harris Public Service Building P.O. Box 2168 Albuquerque New Mexico 87103; >>>Re: *Gigler v. Volkswagen*<<< Dear Mr. Harringan: In your letter of June 16 to Roman Brooks of this agency you ask fo background information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and Fuel Tank Connections,* effective January 1, 1968.; Section 103(h) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 required that the initial safety standards be 'based upon existing safety standards.' Standard No. 301 was based upon General Services Agency Standard No. 515/26, *Fuel Tanks and Tank Filler Pipes,* effective October 13, 1967. As you know, the GSA standards were applicable only to vehicles purchased by the Federal Government. The two standards, however, are not identical, as an example, Standard No. 301 includes fuel tank connections, while GSA Standard No. 515/26 included a rear end collision test at 15 miles per hour. Perhaps GSA can provide you with background information on their standard if you deem it essential to your case.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5174OpenMr. Jose M. Gonzalez Engineering Manager Kustom Fit 8990 Atlantic Box 3004 South Gate, CA 90280; Mr. Jose M. Gonzalez Engineering Manager Kustom Fit 8990 Atlantic Box 3004 South Gate CA 90280; "Dear Mr. Gonzalez: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1993 regarding testing for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You are a manufacturer of seating products for the recreation vehicle industry. You propose to perform a baseline HYGE sled test using all OEM hardware and seats and then to perform a second test using OEM hardware and the seats you manufacture. You asked: If the results of the test using our seats are equal or better than those obtained values with the OEM seats and hardware, does this test prove that our seats are safe to use instead of OEM? Can these results and procedures be acceptable as do diligent (sic) and can our seats then be certified for use in these vehicles regarding FMVSS 208? Some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. (I note that a number of other safety standards also include requirements relevant to seats, including Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.) The Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Standard No. 208, the subject of your inquiry, is applicable to vehicles and not to individual items of equipment (except for pressure devices and explosive devices used in air bags). Therefore, if one of your seats is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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. . . . Therefore, none of these entities could install one of your seats if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards. In all of these situations, you, as the seat manufacturer, would have no certification responsibilities under Standard No. 208. Therefore, with respect to that standard, the remainder of the discussion in this letter is applicable to vehicle manufacturers (including alterers). Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. Under certain circumstances, particularly if the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle, the manufacturer may be asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised 'due care' in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle did not in fact comply with the safety standards. This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute 'due care' in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. You should also note that, while the exercise of 'due care' may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1137OpenMr. Paul G. Scully, Vice President, Grote Manufacturing Company, State Route 7, Post Office Box 766, Madison, Indiana 47250; Mr. Paul G. Scully Vice President Grote Manufacturing Company State Route 7 Post Office Box 766 Madison Indiana 47250; Dear Mr. Scully: This is in response to your letter of May 3, 1973, which request written confirmation that Standard 125, Warning devices, 49 CFR 571.125, requires the lower edge of the reflective surface of the equilateral triangle to be not less that 1 inch above the ground.; Your interpretation of the is correct. The device consists of a equilateral triangle and a support structure. S5.2.3 requires the outer border of the triangular portion to be red reflex reflective material and the inner border of the triangular portion to be orange fluorescent material. Therefore only that portion of the device within these borders is the 'equilateral triangle' and that portion outside these borders is the support structure.; The support structure must of course touch the ground at some point and the standard permits a support design which includes a horizontal base member less than 1 inch from the ground. It is the reflective surface within the borders that must be not less than 1 inch from the ground.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4335OpenMr. Joe Rutman, Travelite Division, Pathway, Ltd., Box 195, Grand Rapids, MI 49508; Mr. Joe Rutman Travelite Division Pathway Ltd. Box 195 Grand Rapids MI 49508; Dear Mr. Rutman: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1987, providin information about the electronic message display known as 'Tellite' which has been developed by Pathway Limited.; I enclosed copies of two recent agency interpretations on electroni message displays similar to yours. You will see that under Federal law such displays may not be used as original equipment, or as replacement equipment on passenger cars that carried center highmounted stop lamps as original equipment. Whether they are acceptable as aftermarket equipment on other vehicles depends on the laws of the individual States where the display will be sold and operated.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1567OpenMs. Viola Back, 4784 Brookwood Road, Youngstown, OH 44512; Ms. Viola Back 4784 Brookwood Road Youngstown OH 44512; Dear Ms. Beck (sic): This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1974, inquiring as t penalties available for violation of the odometer requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.; The Act requires, in part, that a written disclosure of a vehicle' recorded mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer.; Violation of the disclosure requirement may subject the violator t civil liability where his actions were intended to defraud the purchaser. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy, section 409 of the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal Court.; There is no provision in the Act specifying that the transferee mus obtain a disclosure statement from his transferor. The obligation to execute this disclosure document lies with the transferor alone.; For your information, I have enclosed relevant portions of the Act an the odometer disclosure requirements.; If you have any further questions, please let us know. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4765OpenMr. Wayne Brush Director, Material Management Conceptor Industries, Inc. 521 Newpark Blvd. P. O. Box 149 Newmarket, Ontario Canada L3Y 4X7; Mr. Wayne Brush Director Material Management Conceptor Industries Inc. 521 Newpark Blvd. P. O. Box 149 Newmarket Ontario Canada L3Y 4X7; "Dear Mr. Brush: Thank you for your letter to Mr. Clive Van Orden o our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance seeking an interpretation of this agency's requirements for a vehicle identification number (VIN), as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements, and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115). You stated that your company plans to modify vans manufactured by General Motors (GM) to produce electric powered vehicles for sale in the United States. You asked whether these vehicles may use the GM world manufacturer identifier (WMI), as well as a check digit, model year identification, and production sequence codes assigned by GM, and use an X as the engine type code to show that the vehicles were actually manufactured by your company. As explained below, the answer to your question is no. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 reads as follows: Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Each vehicle manufactured in more than one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR 567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. As described in your letter, Conceptor Industries plans to produce completed electric powered vehicles by using an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment produced by GM, including frame and chassis structure, steering, suspension, and braking systems. However, the assemblage provided to your company by GM would not include a power train. The absence of a power train means that this assemblage would not be an 'incomplete vehicle,' as that term is defined in S3 of Standard No. 115, so the Conceptor electric vehicles would not be considered to be manufactured in more than one stage. Your company would not qualify as a vehicle alterer, based on the information provided in your letter, because GM would not have already certified the vehicles modified by your company. Thus, the electric powered vehicles produced by Conceptor would be considered to be vehicles manufactured in one stage, and the VIN for these vehicles would have to be assigned by Conceptor, the manufacturer of these vehicles. Part 565 specifies the format and content of the VIN that Standard No. 115 requires your company to assign to its electric powered vehicles. In relevant part, 49 CFR 565.4 provides that: The VIN shall consist of four sections of characters which shall be grouped accordingly: (a) The first section shall consist of three characters which occupy positions one through three (1-3) in the VIN, This section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. If the manufacturer produces less than 500 motor vehicles of its type annually, those three characters, along with the third, fourth, and fifth characters of the fourth section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle. * * * Under the approach suggested in your letter, GM would be identified as the manufacturer of the vehicle by the first three characters of the VIN, and the eighth character would indicate that Conceptor was the actual manufacturer. This approach would be plainly inconsistent with the requirements of 565.4 quoted above, because the regulation requires the first three characters in the VIN to identify the vehicle manufacturer. Your company is the manufacturer of these vehicles, not GM, so your company must be identified by the first three characters of the VIN. Furthermore, 565.4(b) provides that the eighth character in the VIN shall uniquely identify specified attributes of the vehicle, not identify the manufacturer. Hence, the approach suggested in your letter would not comply with this agency's VIN requirements. Additionally, you informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff in a July 3, 1990 telelphone conversation that, at least in the initial years of your company's production of these vehicles, the annual production will be less than 500. If this is the case, you should note that 565.4(a) requires your company to use not only the first three characters of the VIN to uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle, but also the 12th, 13th, and 14th characters of the VIN as well to make this unique identification. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4270OpenMr. Hal McNamara, McNamara Pontiac Inc., P. O. Box 3269, Orlando, FL 32802; Mr. Hal McNamara McNamara Pontiac Inc. P. O. Box 3269 Orlando FL 32802; This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1986, to Mr. Vinson o this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed a copy of a flyer for 'Ad-A-Lens,' the device appears to be an overlay with a dealer's name, intended to be placed over the lens of the center highmounted stop lamp. You have told us that 'the company selling this product says there is no problem legally or safety-wise....' You have also furnished us with a portion of a preamble to the standard discussing the visibility requirements for the lamp in which the statement is made that beyond the specified test points 'no requirements are established other than that the signal be 'visible,' which means any portion of the signal, without regard to lens area or candela.'; Standard No. 108 does not prohibit adding an overlay to the cente highmounted stop lamp that contains a dealer's name. However, the addition of the overlay must not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Paragraph S4.1.141(a) requires each center highmounted stop lamp t have an effective projected luminous area not less than 4 1/2 square inches. Application of dealer identification to an original equipment lamp not designed for the overlay could well reduce the luminous area below the minimum required by the standard. Further, there is the possibility that the overlay could affect photometric compliance as well. The lamp must meet the photometric requirements at the 13 test points specified in Standard No. 108 up to the maximum specified 10 degrees right and left. Beyond 10 degrees, up to 45 degrees right and left, the overlay must not obscure the signal so that no portion of it is visible.; Should the overlay create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, an person offering for sale or selling a vehicle with it would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as would any dealer adding an overlay to the lamp of a vehicle after it is sold. The Act provides that a penalty of up to $1000 per violation may be imposed, up to a maximum of $800,000 for any related series of violations. You should also seek the advice of State motor vehicle authorities on this matter.; We are providing a copy of this interpretation to Ad-A-Lens, an appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1588OpenMr. Richard D. Henderson, Private Truck Council of America, Inc., 1101 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Richard D. Henderson Private Truck Council of America Inc. 1101 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Henderson: This is in reply to your letters of July 25 and August 26, 1974 requesting inforamtion on NHTSA regulations applicable to regrooved tires.; You ask whether companies leasing trucks to other companies may equi the trucks with regrooved tires, and what tire standards apply.; The recent court decision regarding regrooved tires (*NAMBO* v *Volpe*, 483 F. 2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973), *Cert*. *denied*,--U.S.--(1974)) held that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act the NHTSA could permit only the sale of regrooved tires. Consequently, the leasing of regrooved tires is not prohibited, as is any other introduction of them into interstate commerce other than by a sale. The NHTSA recently amended its regrooved tire regulations to conform to this Court opinion.; We do not construe the opinion to prohibit the leasing of truck equipped with regrooved tires. The regulation applies only to the manner in which the tires themselves are obtained.; The standards applicable to regrooved tires are found in the Regroove Tire regulations (49 CFR Part 569). Regroovable tires manufactured after March 1, 1975, must also conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1072OpenMr. Terry Coleman, Senior Project Coordinator/Federal Codes, Holiday Rambler Corporation, Engineering Department, 1055 East Lincoln Street, Nappanee, IN 46550; Mr. Terry Coleman Senior Project Coordinator/Federal Codes Holiday Rambler Corporation Engineering Department 1055 East Lincoln Street Nappanee IN 46550; Dear Mr. Coleman:#This is in reply to your letter of March 20, 1973, t this agency asking about the applicability of paragraph S4.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 to vehicles other than passenger cars.#Your understanding is correct that the standard establishes wiped area requirements only for passenger car windshields. The NHTSA is engaged in research with the intent of establishing an all- weather visibility standard, combining Standards No. 103 and 104, that would among other things extend the windshield wiped area requirements to vehicles other than passenger cars. However, it is not possible to say when we will issue a rulemaking proposal on this subject.#Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, 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.