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: aiam1434OpenMr. P. Oppenheimer,Technical Legislation Manager,Girling Limited,Kings Road,Tyseley Birmingham 11; Mr. P. Oppenheimer Technical Legislation Manager Girling Limited Kings Road Tyseley Birmingham 11; Dear Mr. Oppenheimer:#This responds to Girling's February 22, 1974 petition for abbreviated labeling on short vacuum hose in cases where the 6-inch interval required by s%.2.2 of Standard 106, *Brake hoses*, makes complete labeling impossible.#The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has modified the labeling requirement of February 26, 1974 (39 FR 7425) by specifying an interval of 'not more than 6 inches' to permit the manufacture and labeling of short hose length without waste. Lettering may be any width so long as it is at least one-eighth of an inch high. your petition, Therefore, is denied as unnecessary.#Sincerely,Robert L. Carter,Associate Administrator,Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4636OpenMr. Ted Aston 3218 Sheffield Place Concord, CA 94518; Mr. Ted Aston 3218 Sheffield Place Concord CA 94518; Dear Mr. Aston: This is in reply to your letter with respect to you wish to import motor vehicle parts from England, to be used in the construction of a kit car for your own use. I regret the delay in responding. You have informed us that you are not importing parts controlled by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, such as 'lights, tires, brake hoses, glazing materials,' or 'the engine, transmission, wheels, instruments, and miscellaneous items that are readily available here'. Instead, you will be importing 'body parts, frame parts, suspension and some steering parts, some electrical parts and the gas tank.' From your description, we believe that your intention is to import motor vehicle equipment and not a motor vehicle. The only items of motor vehicle equipment which are covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and hence must comply or be brought into compliance with those standards are: brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting and reflective devices, passenger car tires, retreaded tires, tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, wheel covers, warning devices, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and child seating systems. If the motor vehicle equipment you are importing includes none of these items, then the equipment may be entered without the necessity of giving a bond for the production of a statement that it has been brought into compliance. I hope that this letter is helpful to you. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3059OpenMr. Peter Bigwood, Chief Engineer, Ontario Bus Industries Inc., 5395 Maingate Drive, Mississauga, Ontario; Mr. Peter Bigwood Chief Engineer Ontario Bus Industries Inc. 5395 Maingate Drive Mississauga Ontario; Dear Mr. Bigwood: This responds to your July 16, 1979, letter asking two questions abou the test procedures of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention*, as they apply to buses you manufacture.; First, you ask whether side service doors can be counted in determinin the proper amount of bus emergency exits as required by the standard. As long as side service doors comply with all requirements applicable to emergency doors, they can be considered emergency exits for purposes of compliance with the standard.; Your second question asks whether glazing in a door is tested fo window retention, and if so, whether it is tested while the door is installed in a bus. The answer to both parts of this question is yes. All bus glazing, that is of the minimum size specified in the standard, must comply with the window retention requirement. The intent of the window retention requirement is to prevent openings in buses that might result in the ejection of occupants from the vehicle during an accident. In order for this requirement to have meaning, the glazing must be tested as it is installed in the vehicle to ensure the integrity of both the glazing and its surrounding structure. This means that glazing in vehicle doors is tested while the door is in the normal closed condition. If the door opens during the test, the vehicle would not be in compliance with the requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1064OpenMr. Bruce E. Roberts, President, Yuma Tire & Recapping, Inc., Route 3, Gate City, Virginia 24251; Mr. Bruce E. Roberts President Yuma Tire & Recapping Inc. Route 3 Gate City Virginia 24251; Dear Mr. Roberts: This is in reply to your letter of February 28, 1973, requesting detailed explanation of what you must do to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, 'Retreaded Pneumatic Tires'. You also ask whether there are record keeping requirements, such as to maintain the name and address of customers to whom tires are sold.; There are specific requirements for retreaders and their dealers t record and maintain the name and address of each tire purchaser. This is done through the use of a code number molded or branded onto each tire. These requirements (49 CFR Part 574, copy enclosed) have been in effect since May 22, 1971.; We have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 117. We regret that we canno provide a detailed explanation of these requirements as you request. We refer you to either private counsel or to one of the many associations of retreaders whom we understand can assist you in implementing the standard. If after reading the standard you have questions of a specific nature regarding its provisions, we will respond to them.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4266OpenMR. M. R. Dunn, Engineering Director, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited, Crew Cheshire CW1 3PL, ENGLAND; MR. M. R. Dunn Engineering Director Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited Crew Cheshire CW1 3PL ENGLAND; Dear Mr. Dunn: Thank you for your telefax of December 18, 1986, concernin Rolls-Royce's ability to meet the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection.* You reported that Rolls-Royce has experienced setbacks in both its automatic belt and airbag programs and faces 'a real possibility of being unable to comply during the 1987 model year to 31 August 1987.' You asked 'whether there would be any restriction imposed on our sales of non-complying 1987 model year cars and the extent of any financial penalty per car if any.'; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act sets out manufacturer's obligation to produce vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for a number of remedies the agency would pursue if a manufacturer has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act. Those remedies are discussed below.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act obligates a manufacture to produce vehicles that conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section prohibits a manufacturer from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, selling, or importing a vehicle that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act also obligates a manufacturer to furnish, at the time of delivery of a vehicle to a distributor or dealer, a certificate that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is a violation of section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Vehicle Safety Act for a manufacturers to issue such a certification if it 'in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect.'; The Vehicle Safety Act provides NHTSA with a wide range of remedies th agency can pursue if there is a violation of the Act. Section 109(a) provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a provision of section 108 of any regulation issued under the authority of that section. Section 109(a) further provides that each non-complying motor vehicle constitutes a separate violation and entitles the agency to collect a civil penalty of up to $8000,000 for a series of violations.; Under section 110 of the Vehicle Safety Act, the agency has authorit to seek injunctive relief to restrain 'violations of this title (or rules, regulations or orders thereunder), or to restrain the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce, or the importation into the United States' of non-complying motor vehicles.; Section 111 of the Vehicle Safety Act imposes additional duties o manufacturer of a non- complying vehicle that has been delivered to a distributor or dealer but not yet sold to a retail customer. That section requires the manufacturer to repurchase the non-complying vehicle from the distributor or dealer, and to reimburse the dealer or distributor for a portion of its expenses. As an alternative, the manufacturer can furnish the purchasing distributor or dealer with the necessary conforming parts and reimburse the distributor or dealer for a portion of its expenses. If a non-complying vehicle has been sold to a retail purchaser, sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act require the vehicle's manufacturer to conduct a non-compliance notification and remedy campaign.; Under the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208, Rolls-Royce ha the obligation to install automatic restraints in ten percent of its vehicles manufactured during the period September 1, 1986 - August 31, 1987 for sale in the United States. If the agency were to determine that passenger car manufactured by Rolls-Royce for sale in the United States do not conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, the agency could pursue any or all to the following remedies under the Vehicle Safety Act. To determine the extend of Rolls-Royce's compliance, the agency could require Rolls-Royce to provide information on the number of vehicles produced and the number equipped with automatic restraints. The agency could seek to restrain the sale of the non-complying Rolls-Royce cars that have been imported into the Untied States. In addition, the agency could seek to restrain the further importation of non-complying Rolls-Royce passenger cars into the United States. Further, the agency could seek a civil penalty against Rolls-Royce for each violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) and (C). In addition to seeking those remedies, the agency has authority under section 152 of the Vehicle safety act to determine whether Rolls-Royce should be ordered to conduct a notification and remedy campaign for the non-complying vehicles. While your question and the above discussion are hypothetical, we strongly urge Rolls-Royce to take all necessary steps to assure compliance with the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2561OpenMr. Gordon P. Cress, Chief, Structures & Test, Weber Aircraft, 2820 Ontario Street, Burbank, CA 91505; Mr. Gordon P. Cress Chief Structures & Test Weber Aircraft 2820 Ontario Street Burbank CA 91505; Dear Mr. Cress: This responds to your letter of February 25, 1977, requesting a interpretation concerning the force requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You ask whether the specified forces are intended to be 'limit loads' (those loads under which no permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation is allowed) or 'ultimate loads' (those loads under which structural integrity must be maintained even though permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation takes place) (your terms and definitions).; Under the requirements of Standard No. 210, the anchorage of a sea belt assembly must be able to withstand certain designated forces when tested in accordance with the procedures of the standard. Paragraph S4.2.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or it surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for a specified period of time. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 210 could be considered 'ultimate loads,' as you define that term.; The agency interprets the force requirements of Standard No. 207 t allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided structural integrity is maintained. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 207 could also be considered 'ultimate loads,' as you define that term.Please note, however, that if seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened, a determination could be made under provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1381, *et seq*.) that the vehicle contains a safety related defect and sanctions could be imposed on the manufacturer.; Please contact our office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2131OpenMr. J. C. Eckhold, Director, Automotive Safety Office, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; Dear Mr. Eckhold: This is in response to your letter of September 24, 1975, in which yo ask whether it is permissible to test certain 1978 vehicles for compliance with Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*, with open vapor vent tube pressure relief valves.; The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not specify the test which you must perform. They do specify conditions and procedures under which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will conduct its compliance testing. S7.1.1 and S7.1.2 of Standard No. 301 specify that the vehicle's fuel system shall contain Stoddard solvent rather than fuel and, by implication, that the engine shall not be running. If, as you indicate, one consequence of the engine's not running is that a certain pressure relief valve in the vapor vent tube is closed, then that valve must remain closed during the NHTSA's compliance testing, the existing standard could not be interpreted otherwise. Although in an actual collision any rollover would probably occur immediately after the initial impact, in some accidents vehicle occupants would be trapped for some period of time after rollover. Therefore, we do not consider that this interpretation creates, as you suggest, an artificial condition by subjecting the fuel tank to a potential vapor pressure build-up during preparation for the rollover test.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3370OpenJ. P. Koziatek, P.E., Director, Technical Services, Questor Juvenile Products Company, 771 N. Freedom Street, Ravenna, OH 44266; J. P. Koziatek P.E. Director Technical Services Questor Juvenile Products Company 771 N. Freedom Street Ravenna OH 44266; Dear Mr. Koziatek: This responds to your letter of September 4, 1980, concerning Standar NO. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. You asked whether instruction booklets provided with child restraints must meet the flammability requirement of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. The answer is no. They do not have to comply with Standard No. 302.; Section 5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires each material used in a chil restraint to conform to performance requirements of Standard No. 302. You asked whether the installation instructions, which are required by section 5.6 to accompany the child restraint, must comply with the flammability requirements of section 5.7. Since the installation instructions, unlike an affixed label, are not a physical part of the child restraint system, they do not have to comply with section 5.7.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2998OpenMr. D. Black, Manager, U.S. Engineering Office, Alfa Romeo, Inc., 250 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. D. Black Manager U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Black: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1979, to Mr. Vinson o this office asking for an opinion of whether a red rear fog lamp system would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as original equipment. This lamp system would be of the same intensity as the stop lamp system, installed in a separate compartment within the rear lamp assemblies. The system would have a separate switch and be operational only when the headlamp switch is in the 'on' position.; As you have noted, Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements fo either front or rear fog lamps. Lighting equipment supplementary to that required as original equipment may be provided at the manufacturer's option if it does not impair the effectiveness of any equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 (S4.1.3). On the basis of your submission, we are unable to form an opinion whether your system would impair effectiveness with the meaning of S4.1.3. If it is Alfa Romeo's judgment that the red fog lamps will not impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps or backup lamps, then you may have a reasonable basis upon which to install the fog lamp system and to certify compliance with S4.1.3.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2832OpenRichard A. Brandeis, Esq., Investigative Services, Department of Public Safety, P.O. Box 1456, Atlanta, GA 30301; Richard A. Brandeis Esq. Investigative Services Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 1456 Atlanta GA 30301; Dear Mr. Brandeis: This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1978, to Ms. Claybrook o moped helmets. You have informed us of Ga. L. 1978, Act 1476, which allows the Commissioner of the Deparment of Public Safety to develop a standard for 'moped' helmets different than that for a motorcycle helmet. You have asked whether NHTSA considers mopeds as motor vehicles 'as they relate to helmet use'. If so, must a moped helmet comply with Standard No. 218. Finally, if a separate State standard is allowable, you have asked whether Georgia could develop and implement its own standard for 'moped' helmets.; As defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) a 'motorcycle' is 'a motor vehicle .. having a saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground'. We have no other definitions applicable to two-wheeled vehicles and, for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a 'moped' is a 'motorcycle'. Paragraph S2 of Standard No. 218 states that Federal requirements apply to helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users'. We view a moped operator as a 'motorcyclist' within the meaning of S2 and a helmet designed for use by a moped operator would have to comply with Standard No. 218. However, S2 continues by stating that Standard No. 218 applies only to 'helmets that fit headform size C' and that other sizes 'will not be covered by this standard until it is extended to those sizes by further amendment.'; Section 103(c) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. 1342(d)) prohibits a State from establishing a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as an existing Federal safety standard if the state standard differs from it. In our view, this means that Georgia could not establish 'moped' helmet requirements for helmets that fit size C headformns, unless they were identical to the requirements of Standard No. 218, but it could issue and implement 'moped' helmet requirements for helmets that fit other size headforms, such as A, B, and D.; While this represents an interpretation under existing Federa regulations, Georgia could petition NHTSA for rulemaking to adopt a different headgear standard for moped helmets that fit size C headform if the State, pursuant to its legislature's authorization, developed what it believed to be a more appropriate requirement. I enclose a copy of our rulemaking procedures, 49 CFR Part 552.; If you have any further questions, we will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.