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: aiam2710OpenMs. Jill M. Zick, Burley, Smiertka, Swank, and Misko, P.C., 2525 W. Jefferson, Trenton, MI 48183; Ms. Jill M. Zick Burley Smiertka Swank and Misko P.C. 2525 W. Jefferson Trenton MI 48183; Dear Ms. Zick: This responds to your September 6, 1977, letter asking whether th requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) apply to your client, an alterer of motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it appears that your client intends to alter previously certified vehicles to make them accessible to the handicapped. You ask what, if any, regulations would apply to this alteration.; There are no safety standards applicable to the installation of th devices to which you refer. Your client's responsibility for purposes of compliance with the regulations of the NHTSA would be to ensure that he does not affect the compliance of previously certified vehicles.; If your client modifies certified vehicles prior to their firs purchase for purposes other than resale, he would be responsible for ensuring that they continue to comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The applicable regulation, Part 567, *Certification*, (49 CFR Part 567.7), requires that he attach an alterer's label to each vehicle indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards.; If your client modifies vehicles after their first purchase fo purposes other than resale, he would not have to attach an alterer's label to them. However, he would not be allowed to render inoperative any device or element of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard (Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1397). Thus, whatever manufacturing operation was performed by your client, it would be necessary for him to ensure that all aspects of the vehicle covered by motor vehicle safety standards remain in compliance with those standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4294OpenMr. T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Control Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakemeguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakemeguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1987, with respect to th mounting height of driving lamps and front fog lamps. Noting that these Lamps are not equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, you have asked whether they need to be mounted within the range of height which the standard prescribes for headlamps, or may they be mounted, for example, at a height lower than 22 inches such as in the front bumper.; Any lamp that is not required by Standard No. 108 may be added to motor vehicle and located wherever it appears suitable, provided that the lamp at its location does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Headlamps, parking lamps, and turn signal lamps are the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 on the front of a passenger car, and any other four-wheeled vehicle of less than 80 inches overall width. Although Standard No. 108 impose a minimum mounting height of 22 inches on headlamps, it allows parking lamps and turn signal lamps to be mount as low as 15 inches above the road surface which means that they could be mounted in the front bumper, or otherwise close to the mounting location of fog lamps and driving lamps. Therefore, compliance with paragraph S4.1..3 of Standard No. 108 would require a manufacturer of a vehicle equipped with fog and driving lamps to ensure that they do not impair the effectiveness of the headlamps, turn signal lamps, and parking lamps.; Because fog lamps and driving lamps are not covered by Standard No 108, the individual States may have their own restrictions on the mounting height of these lamps. We regret that we are unable to advise you on these laws. However, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., may be able to advise you.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3551OpenMr. Robert P. McEvoy, President, Automotive Research and Certification Inc., 5 Orrantia Circle, Danvers, MA 01923; Mr. Robert P. McEvoy President Automotive Research and Certification Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers MA 01923; Dear Mr. McEnvoy: This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1981, appealing ou denial of your request to import five different German specification 1982 BMW passenger cars under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). This provision allows vehicles not meeting the Federal safety and bumper standards to be imported for test purposes for a limited time without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; You have asked us to reconsider our original decision or alternativel to allow the importation of two of the five vehicles. You have also agreed to perform all safety compliance work within 30 days of receipt of the five test vehicles, allowing you to carry out your test programs for developing complying emissions and bumper systems.; Upon review of your petition, the agency is agreeable to allowing yo to import a total of five vehicles under the provision of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), without insisting upon immediate compliance with the bumper requirements, provided that you will agree in writing that the vehicles will be brought into compliance with then existing bumper requirements if they are sold to third parties. This will allow you a maximum of 120 days to bring the vehicles into compliance with safety requirements.; The bumper standard is primarily a property damage standard, rathe than a safety standard, and the Administrator has the authority to waive it completely for vehicles imported into the United States. Although this authority has not been exercised or implemented in regulations, the temporary waiver which may be provided you is consistent with the intent of Congress, and allows both you and the agency to accomplish their goals. As a practical matter, the bumper standard may be amended in the near future to prescribe a more cost-effective level of performance and in that event your task of conforming the vehicles might be less difficult, we would not insist on conformance with the bumper standard in effect when the BMW's were manufactured.; I hope that this proposed solution is satisfactory to you. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1096OpenMiss C. A. McGonigle, Senior Import Specialist, District Director of Customs, Terminal Island, California 90731; Miss C. A. McGonigle Senior Import Specialist District Director of Customs Terminal Island California 90731; Dear Miss McGonigle: This is in reply to your letter of March 15, 1973, to Mr. Armstron asking 'whether a hub cap with a wing type attachment is subject to Standard 211.'; Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs, wheel nuts, and hub caps tha incorporate winged projections. The item that you enclosed appears to be a wheel spinner which, when attached to a wheel disc or hub cap would create an assembly incorporating a winged projection in violation of Standard No. 211. The item itself is not literally prohibited by the standard, but it evidently has no function apart from this end use. I am therefore of the opinion, if the same source is separately shipping spinners and wheel disc/hub caps to which the spinner may be attached, that these items may be refused entry into the United States.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3101OpenMr. M. Ogata, Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Office, Detroit Branch, 23777 Greenfield Road, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. M. Ogata Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Ogata: This responds to your recent letter concerning the labelin requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You ask whether the brand name of your vehicles, 'Mazda', may be dropped from the label on your seat belts.; The answer to your question is yes. Paragraph S4.1(k) of Safet Standard No. 209 requires the seat belt label to include year of manufacture of the assembly, model name or number of the assembly, and trade-mark of manufacturer or distributor. The name of the vehicle on which the assembly will be installed is not required to be on the seat belt assembly label.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3414OpenMr. Dietmar K. Haenchen, Executive Director, Vehicle Regulations, Volkswagen of America, Inc., 27621 Parkview Boulevard, Warren, MI 48092; Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Director Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren MI 48092; Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in reply to your letter of May 27, 1981, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your company is considering, for fuel economy purposes, use of an engine stop/start system by which the engine would be switched off within a few seconds after a vehicle has come to a complete stop, and, to save battery capacity, the headlamps would also be deactivated. The parking lamps, however, will remain on. You believe that Standard No. 108 would not preclude such a system.; Although your letter does not mention it, we assume that when th parking lights are activated, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps would also be on, as required by S4.5.7(a) of Standard No. 108. The question then arises whether the system described is prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 which states that 'No...motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required' by Standard No. 108. Although the primary function of headlamps is to illuminate the roadway in front of the driver at night or under conditions of reduced visibility, they also serve to indicate the presence of the vehicle to traffic approaching from the opposite direction. In a situation where, on a two-lane road, a car has pulled to the shoulder temporarily, a headlamp will be perceived at a greater distance than a parking lamp to oncoming traffic. Headlamps also serve an illuminating function when people have paused in unfamiliar neighborhoods in an effort to discern their whereabouts. We believe, therefore, that your device could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of headlamps within the meaning of S4.1.3.; This, however, is not a view dispositive of the issue. Compliance wit Standard No. 102 would also appear to be affected as that standard requires that the engine starter be inoperable when the transmission shift lever is in the forward or reverse position. Last year the agency granted a rulemaking petition with respect to an engine stop/start system such as you have discussed. I enclose a copy for your information. Although no notice has yet been published on this question, we shall endeavor to include a reference to headlamp switching devices in any future rulemaking activity on this subject.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1429OpenMr. James P. Coughlin, Vice President-Marketing, Bell Helmets Inc., 2850 East 29th Street, Long Beach, CA 90806; Mr. James P. Coughlin Vice President-Marketing Bell Helmets Inc. 2850 East 29th Street Long Beach CA 90806; Dear Mr. Coughlin: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1974, requesting definition for 'motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users' used in paragraph S1. *Scope*, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*. You ask specifically what this phrase means relative to public thoroughfares, motorcycle race tracks, off-road public and private lands, and any other vehicles.; >>>'Motorcycle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as-- 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the us of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.'<<<; A 'motorcyclist,' then, would be any rider of a motorcycle as define above. 'Other motor vehicle users' means any occupant of a motor vehicle not a motorcycle. 'Motor vehicle' is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as--; >>>'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.'<<<; Standard No. 218 applies to the manufacturers, distributors, an dealers of helmets to be used at least in part by motorcyclists or other motor vehicle users. The circumstances under which such helmets must be worn, however, is under the jurisdictional control of the respective States and their political subdivisions.; You also ask whether it is lawful to manufacture and sell helmets fo racing purposes that are designed to meet the Snell standard, irrespective of Standard No. 218. The answer is yes, if due care is taken by such manufacturers, distributors, and dealers to prevent non-conforming helmets from being introduced into interstate commerce for eventual use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users on the public streets, roads, and highways.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1583OpenMr. Paul D. Carfagna, Technical Representative, Plastics Department, E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated, Wilmington, DE 19898; Mr. Paul D. Carfagna Technical Representative Plastics Department E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company Incorporated Wilmington DE 19898; Dear Mr. Carfagna: This is in reply to your letter of August 2, 1974, asking for th appropriate method for bending plastic material over the mandrel as specified in Test No. 22 of ANS Z26.1-1966, which is incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205). You indicate that the test procedure does not specify either the bending force, or whether mechanical means for bending are allowed.; Paragraph 5.22.2 of Test 22 states, in part, as follows: >>>After conditioning, the test specimens shall be immediately ben over a mandrel so that either the entire length of the specimen shall conform to the surface of the mandrel or that it be bent 180 degrees over the mandrel, with the longitudinal axis of the specimen normal to the axis of the mandrel. (emphasis added)<<<; As the procedure does not specify the bending force, or the method i which it is to be applied, the NHTSA would consider as appropriate any force or method of application that would permit the plastic to be bent immediately after conditioning. There is nothing to prohibit the use of hand or mechanical pressure, but it must be applied in such a way that an immediate bending takes place.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3044OpenMr. R. G. Clifton, Manager, Tyre Legislation, Dunlop Limited, Tyre Technical Division, Fort Dunlop, Birmingham, England B24 9QT; Mr. R. G. Clifton Manager Tyre Legislation Dunlop Limited Tyre Technical Division Fort Dunlop Birmingham England B24 9QT; Dear Mr. Clifton: This is in response to your letter of May 8, 1979, requesting a exemption from the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), Federal motor vehicle safety standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109), and the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Part 574 (49 CFR Part 574) for several lines of 'antique' tires.; Dunlop's petition for exemption does not qualify as a petition fo temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards under Part 555 (49 CFR Part 555), since that part applies only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. However, the regulations you refer to apply only to tires for use on vehicles manufactured after 1948 (49 CFR 575.104(c)), (sic)49 CFR 571.109, S2, 49 CFR 574.4), and therefore, many of the tires listed in your letter are not within the scope of these regulations. Also, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to issue in the near future a notice of proposed rulemaking to exclude limited production tires from the application of the UTQG Standards, regardless of the tire's intended use.; You also asked that some form of labeling system be adopted for tire which are not required to be graded under the UTQG regulation, to facilitate processing of such tires by United States customs authorities. Regulations governing importation of motor vehicle equipment (19 CFR 12.80) only require compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Any tire marked with the DOT symbol as required by Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109, S4.3.1) or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119, S6.5(a)), as applicable, or which is not required to comply with such standards, will be processed expeditiously by customs authorities, and the question of compliance with the UTQG regulation should not arise. While NHTSA does not consider it necessary to impose a labeling system for tires excluded from the UTQG Standard, the agency has no objection to voluntary labeling by manufacturers or importers.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1079OpenMr. Barry Kulik, 114 West 30 Street, New York, NY 1001 (sic); Mr. Barry Kulik 114 West 30 Street New York NY 1001 (sic); Dear Mr. Kulik: This is in response to your letter of March 9, 1973, requesting ou confirmation of an opinion given you by phone concerning the method of testing the sensitivity of seat belt warning systems under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.; We hereby confirm our previous statement that the weight sensin provisions of sections S7.3 and S7.4 do not require the use of a specified test dummy. The sections refer to 'persons' of specified weights, thereby implying some distribution of the weight, but they do not reference the test dummy used in other sections of the standard.; Yours truly, 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.