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: aiam1570OpenMr. 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 July 25, 1974, asking whether th statement 'Make no modifications' included in the labeling requirements of Standard 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, would prohibit the after-market installation of a quick release device which may be attached to a helmet's retention strap. You included an illustration of such a device in your letter.; The answer is no. The statement does not restrict after-marke modifications by a first purchaser for purposes other than resale. It only serves to warn the consumer of the danger of making such modifications.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4288OpenMr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc., Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager Environmental Engineering BMW of North America Inc. Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Ziwica: This letter concerns your request for an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*, as it applies to the antitheft device BMW intends to install on the Carline 7 passenger car line for model year 1988. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.; On October 9, 1986, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Registe granting BMW's petition for an exemption from the marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard, based on its determination that an effective antitheft device will be installed on those lines as standard equipment. (51 FR 3633.) However, because NHTSA wished to further consider the compliance of the double- lock aspect of the central locking system with Standard No. 206, we granted the petition while reserving decision on that issue. We have completed our evaluation of the double-lock system and have determined it is permitted by the standard.; In its petition for exemption from the marking requirements of th Theft Prevention Standard, BMW described an antitheft device which, among other things, prevents entry into the vehicle by affecting the door locks in the following manner:; >>>The inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical plunge on each door, and the plungers on the front doors override the two rear door plungers. To prevent locking the keys in the car upon exiting, the front doors can only be locked with a key. For Convenience, this also locks all other doors, if they are open at the time of locking, they lock when closed.<<<; >>>The locks in the front doors have three-positions cylinders - off 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees and removed from the lock, the doors, trunk and gas filler door are locked. If, however, the key is rotated 90 degrees and removed, the car's burglar alarm is armed and the doors are 'double locked', after the plungers move downward, the central locking system is deactivated and the door locks are mechanically inhibited. Thus locked, neither an outside nor inside handle, nor a locking plunger can be used to unlock a door - the doors can only be unlocked and the alarm disarmed using a key in a front door lock... Disconnecting the battery does not unlock the doors or change the 'double locked' mode... In the event of an accident, an inertia switch automatically unlocks all doors.<<<; The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows: >>>S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a lockin mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism i engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpos passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.<<<; The standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door loc requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.; Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1. through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the operating means to disengage requisite door locking mechanisms. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past NHTSA interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only additional locking systems which interfere with the capability of the operating means to *engage* the locking system required by the standard. Since, according to your letter of September 24, 1986, BMW's double-lock feature does not interfere with the interior operating means' engagement of the required door locks, the secondary locking system is permitted.; The answer to your question about the double lock system is dependen on whether the system interferes with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 of the standard are written in terms of what must occur when the required locking system is engaged and impose no requirements for the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of *engaging* the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is *engaged.* Since we have determined that S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks, we conclude that the required aspect of performance in S4.1.3 for door locking mechanisms is that the interior operating means be capable only of engaging the locks. We thus conclude that the standard permits an additional door locking device which might interfere with the disengagement of the required locking system. The additional system, however, must *not* interfere with the capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks.; In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 20 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to 'minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.' Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibit a device which negates the capability of the inside operating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.; This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies pas agency statements on issues raised by secondary locking systems. To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations issued in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4322OpenMr. Paul Utans, Vice President, Government Affairs, Subaru of America, P.O. Box 6000, Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000; Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Government Affairs Subaru of America P.O. Box 6000 Cherry Hill NJ 08034-6000; Dear Mr. Utans: This responds to your letter of April 21, 1987, concerning the Part 58 Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle equipped with a suspension system whose height is adjustable by the driver is tested at the manufacturer's engine- on and engine-off nominal design height.; On May 6, 1986, I responded to a similar request that you made for a interpretation. My letter (copy enclosed) stated that it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted.; Your current request for an interpretation does not provide ne arguments which indicate that our earlier interpretation was incorrect. Therefore, I must reaffirm that earlier opinion.; As we indicated in the May 6, 1986 letter, we appreciate your concer that the very reason that the adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is partially negated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. The letter stated, however, that if the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking. See section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.; I would also note that in a meeting in March of this year, a member o my staff advised your representatives that your company could submit a petition for rulemaking requesting an amendment to Part 581. The procedures for submitting a petition for rulemaking are set forth at 49 CFR Part 552. If you should submit a petition, the agency would decide whether to grant it in accordance with statutory criteria.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1120OpenMr. W. H. Blaine, Manager, Southern California Edison Company, Automotive; Mr. W. H. Blaine Manager Southern California Edison Company Automotive; Dear Mr. Blaine: This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1973, in which you as whether the installation of a truck body or derrick on a new chassis-cab by your company for its own use makes it a final-stage manufacturer subject to the identification and certification provisions implementing the Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Public Law 89- 563.; The answer to your question is yes. The completion of a motor vehicl by a manufacturer for its own use does not relieve it of responsibility for certification.; As a final-stage manufacturer, you are required to submit th information specified in 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. I am enclosing a copy of Part 566 for your information. No specific format is required, and a letter report will suffice.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5163OpenMr. Jeff Gerner Product Engineering Manager Banner Welder, Inc. N117 W18200 Fulton Drive Germantown, WI 53022; Mr. Jeff Gerner Product Engineering Manager Banner Welder Inc. N117 W18200 Fulton Drive Germantown WI 53022; "Dear Mr. Gerner: This responds to your inquiry about whether th mobile screening and shredding equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that your equipment is designed to be used primarily in off-road environments such as compost sites similar to landfills, but may be towed over the public roads to multiple sites. You stated that most purchasers of your equipment use it at an off-road site for extended time periods, but occasionally the equipment will be moved from one off-road to another off-road site on a more frequent basis. You stated that it would be inconvenient for your equipment to comply with Standard No. 121's emergency braking requirements because a truck with an air brake system would be needed at all times to move your equipment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, this agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term 'motor vehicle' as follows: 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority. Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on- highway use is more than 'incidental.' Based on the literature provided in your letter and the subsequent telephone conversation, the agency believes that the on-highway use of your equipment is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Accordingly, it appears that your mobile screener and shredder are not 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, they would not be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This conclusion is based on the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. We note that while your letter stated that your equipment may be moved 'daily or weekly' on the public roads to other sites, you stated in the telephone conversation that such frequent movement is rare and that this equipment is primarily for off-road purposes. The agency would reconsider this determination if it obtained information indicating that the equipment's on-highway use is more than 'incidental.' I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1989OpenMr. Manuel M. Ellenbogen, Supervisor, Export Sales & Licensing, International-Automotive, The Budd Company, 2450 Hunting Park Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19132; Mr. Manuel M. Ellenbogen Supervisor Export Sales & Licensing International-Automotive The Budd Company 2450 Hunting Park Avenue Philadelphia PA 19132; Dear Mr. Ellenbogen: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1975, asking whic standards might be affected by the mounting of a tail lamp in the elastic skin of a bumper.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection* prescribes barrier and pendulum impact tests to which vehicles must be subjected without incurring certain types of damage. Included in the list of safety systems that must remain undamaged are lamps and reflective devices. S5.3.1 of Standard 215 states that each lamp or reflective device, except license plate lamps, must remain free of cracks and comply with the applicable visibility requirements of S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; The manufacturer should be aware that placement of a tail lamp in th elastic skin of a bumper might expose it to damage during Standard 215 compliance testing.; For your information, I have enclosed copies of the current Standar No. 215, the proposed Part 580 bumper damageability standard, and Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0361OpenMr. David A. Phelps, Jr., Group Supervisor, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. David A. Phelps Jr. Group Supervisor Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps: This letter is to further clarify an interpretation contained in ou letter of May 6, 1971, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation.; We wish to make it clear that although the final-stage manufacturer ma designate someone to maintain the records required under section 574.10 of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, the legal responsibility for maintaining the records remains with the final-stage manufacturer.; However, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediat manufacturer, may assume 'legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by (the Act) with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured . . .' (49 C.F.R. 568.7). In such a case, the responsibilities for maintaining the records required by the Act and by the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation will be assumed by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediate manufacturer, and the final-stage manufacturer will be relieved of all liability for maintaining the records.; We would also point out that the Tire Identification and Record Keepin Regulation was not meant to preclude the use of multiple designees for the maintenance of the required records. See the enclosed interpretation issued on May 28, 1971 (36 F.C. 9780).; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5499OpenHerr Tilman Spingler Robert Bosch GmbH FAX 49-7121-35-1792; Herr Tilman Spingler Robert Bosch GmbH FAX 49-7121-35-1792; Dear Herr Spingler: We have received your FAX of February 15, 1995 asking whether a proposed design 'for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108.' The agency does not advise manufacturers whether particular designs are regarded as 'conforming.' That determination is to be made by the manufacturer in certifying that its product conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, we can provide you with an interpretive guideline. Section S4 defines a 'replaceable bulb headlamp' as a headlamp 'comprising a bonded lens reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources.' The intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp. This means that, if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced. If your design is such that the lens cannot be removed from the reflector assembly for replacement, it would appear to meet the definition in S4. As you are well aware, NHTSA granted your company's petition for rulemaking, and, in November 1994, proposed an amendment of the definition of 'replaceable bulb headlamp' that would allow a replaceable lens if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2. Comments were due on this proposal February 21, 1995. In due course, after review of the comments, NHTSA will decide whether it will pursue further rulemaking or terminate the rulemaking action. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5533OpenMr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Manager of Government Relations Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana, CA 92718-2016; Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Manager of Government Relations Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A. P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana CA 92718-2016; "Dear Mr. Shetler: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995 asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green. You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted that the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators. You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. You also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acceptable. We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard specified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including turn signal pilot indicators and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator. We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light 'with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm.' must be used 'if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle.' Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with 'a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm.' must be used 'if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders.' Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to 'inside' and 'outside' the vehicle are inapposite. Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so. As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard No. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment 'be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions.' If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0731OpenMr. Robert B. Kurre, Wayne Transportation Division, Post Office Box 908, Industries Road, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert B. Kurre Wayne Transportation Division Post Office Box 908 Industries Road Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1972, in which you aske whether a bus passenger seat to which you plan to attach seat belts would be required to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.; The seat would not be required to conform to either standard. Eac expressly exempts bus passenger seats from compliance with its requirements. It is our opinion that if a manufacturer provides a safety device which the applicable standards do not require him to provide, he is not bound to conform to the performance requirements of those standards.; Even though no standard is presently applicable, the agency i considering rulemaking action that will establish a standard for bus seating and we strongly urge you to provide the safest possible installation.; 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.