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: aiam4528OpenThe Honorable Douglas H. Bosco House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Douglas H. Bosco House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Bosco: This is in reply to your letter of June l6, l988, wit reference to your constituent Jerry Yost of Occidental. Thank you for enclosing our previous correspondence on Mr. Yost's C-More Light invention. This device is a relay which would allow a headlamp's lower beam to remain in operation when the upper beam is activated. In my reply of August 3, l987, I advised you that the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard explicitly prohibits simultaneous activation of upper and lower beams in four-lamp headlighting systems other than the one we call Type F (S4.5.8 of 49 CFR 57l.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). I explained that our historical concern has been that the maximum candlepower limitations of the Federal standard might be exceeded. In your latest letter, you have enclosed a copy of a test report by Industrial Testing Laboratories and a letter from the California Highway Patrol. You have asked the steps, if any, that Mr. Yost should take to market legally his device. The test report is intended to show that maximum candela will not be exceeded when the device is used in a four-lamp headlamp system. California advised that the device appeared legal to install on vehicles equipped with Type F headlamp systems, and that 'this system is also permitted by California law as long as the photometric output is within the standards established for any other type of headlight. The ITL tests appear to show compliance'. We have reviewed the ITL test report, and find it indicative of the features and limitations of Mr. Yost's system. The test report shows a failure of the dual filament 2A1 lamp (second column from the left) at test point 4D-V where 3490 candlepower is measured. Note the maximum limitation of 2500 candlepower at that test point (third column from the right, same line). Contrasted with this is an unusually low reading of 2540 candlepower for the same test point with the single filament 1A1 lamp (third column from the left) when up to 5000 candela is allowed (fourth column from the right). The net result, however, is that the combined maximum of 6030 candlepower (fourth column from the left) is well within the allowable 7500 maximum of Standard No. 108 (first column from the right). In essence, the test report indicates that the light at test point 4D-V produced by the system under test does not achieve the balance contemplated by the standard, although the light at other test points meets the requirements of the standard. While the test report indicates that a system using the lamps tested might conform to Standard No. 108, this was achieved by using what appear to be two lamps of moderate performance. The agency believes it likely that replacement headlamps for such a system would more likely approach the maxima prescribed for 4D-V and other test points for Type 1A1 and 2A1 headlamps with the result that simultaneous operation of upper and lower beams would exceed the established limits. In other words, although an original equipment headlighting system using the relay might meet Federal photometric specifications, there is no assurance that replacement lights would. Type F systems have been designed to preclude exceeding the maxima. Thus, our concern remains for lighting systems using lamps other than Type F. The agency's views on simultaneous operation are discussed in further detail in a Federal Register notice published in l986, a copy of which I enclose (Docket No. 81-11, Notice l4). As I indicated before Mr. Yost's device may be legally installed as original or aftermarket equipment on any passenger car equipped with a Type F headlamp system. Use with any other original equipment headlighting system is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 108. As for aftermarket applications other than Type F, he should be aware of the statutory section (15 USC 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibiting manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard if installation of the relay would result in a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. We are providing a copy of this letter to the California Highway Patrol so that it may be aware of our views on this subject. Mr. Yost and the agency share a common desire to improve foreground lighting, a subject currently under study at NHTSA. We appreciate his interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001; |
|
ID: aiam3717OpenDavid I. Fallk, Esq., Robert W. Munley, P.C., Floor Eight, Penn Security Bank Building, P.O. Box 1066, Scranton, PA 18503; David I. Fallk Esq. Robert W. Munley P.C. Floor Eight Penn Security Bank Building P.O. Box 1066 Scranton PA 18503; Dear Mr. Fallk: This responds to your letter of July 11, 1983, concerning Standard No 121, *Air Brake Systems*, and the *PACCAR* case. The answers to your questions are as follows.; Your first question was whether, following *PACCAR*, a manufacturer wa required to comply with the applicable 121 standard for trucks which had been assembled but not delivered. The answer to that question is no, for the portions of the standard that were invalidated by the court. As noted in an enclosed letter (dated March 4, 1980), NHTSA concluded that the 'no lockup' and 60-mph stopping distances had been invalidated from the effective date of the standard. Therefore, after *PACCAR*, no manufacturer was required to comply with those invalidated portions of the standard, whether or not a vehicle had already been assembled.; Your second question concerned whether a manufacturer or anyone else i properly informed was prevented from disabling the anti-lock system, before it was put into service. The answer to that question is no. That issue is fully explained in two enclosed letters (dated September 11, 1979, and March 4, 1980). These letters explain the relationship of what your letter refers to as the section of the vehicle safety act to prevent disabling and Standard No. 121, in light of the *PACCAR* case.; I have also enclosed a letter (dated November 29, 1979), whic discusses the nature of Standard No. 121 as a performance standard. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0838OpenMr. G. Harrison, General Manager, Protector Africa (Pty.) Ltd., P. O. Box 20, Kempton Park, Transvaal, South Africa; Mr. G. Harrison General Manager Protector Africa (Pty.) Ltd. P. O. Box 20 Kempton Park Transvaal South Africa; Dear Mr. Harrison: This is in reply to your letter of July 31, 1972, in which you reques that your motorcycle helmet be tested by our testing authority. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approval of any item of motor vehicle equipment as conforming to any motor vehicle safety standard. Each item is required to conform, but the basis upon which a manufacturer determines whether his product conforms to a standard is a matter within his own discretion.; We thank you for your compliments and for your comments on the propose standard for motorcycle helmets, which have been placed in the rulemaking docket.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2805OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your February 9, 1978, letter asking how to measur the head form contact area in Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; In your first paragraph, you indicate that the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration (NHTSA) has allowed the knee form contact area measurement to be undertaken on or within a line 1 1/2 inches from the edge of the leg protection zone to ensure that the knee form will contact the entire surface. You ask that a similar line be established for the head protection zone contact areas.; As you know, the head form contact area requirements apply to mor areas than do the knee form contact area requirements. The knee form contact area requirements apply only to seat backs and the backs of restraining barriers. The head form contact area, on the other hand, includes anything falling within a specified zone which might include the sides or tops of seats. Therefore, it is impossible to create fictional lines around the outer edges of objects that fall within the head protection zone for purposes of testing the compliance of those objects with the requirements. The agency notes further that it never stated that it would test knee form contact area on or inside a line 1 1/2 inches from the edge of a seat back or restraining barrier. The agency did state that it would test in a manner that 'provides opportunity for the knee form to contact with the seat back or restraining barrier to the fullest extent possible.' That interpretation can also be applied to the head form contact area requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4178OpenWilliam Shapiro, P.E., Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; William Shapiro P.E. Manager Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Shapiro: Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1986, requesting an interpretatio of how the requirements of Standard No. 212, *Windshield Retention*, apply to a passenger car that is equipped with a driver-only air bag system. As explained below, such a vehicle must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after being tested in accordance with Standard No. 212.; Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicle (sic) that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.; You noted that S4.1.3.4(b) of Standard No. 208 provides that, fo purpose of calculating the number of passive restraint-equipped cars during the phase-in of passive restraints, a car with a driver-only, non-belt passive restraint will be counted as a vehicle complying with the passive restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1(a). Such a driver-only system can have a manual safety belt installed at the right front passenger position. You said that Volvo considers a vehicle with a driver-only, non-belt system to be a passive restraint vehicle and thus subject to the 50 percent windshield retention requirement of S5.1 (sic); As discussed in a July 5, 1977, Federal Register notice (42 FR 34288) one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles was because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield. In addition, there could be incidental contact between an air bag- restrained test dummy and the windshield. Because the same air bag-to-windshield and dummy-to-windshield contact is possible in a vehicle equipped with a driver-only air bag system, the agency believes that it is appropriate to apply the 50 percent retention requirement to a driver-only air bag system.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1680OpenMr. Quentin H. McDonald, The Bobby-Mac Company, Inc., P.O. Box 209, Scarsdale, NY 10583; Mr. Quentin H. McDonald The Bobby-Mac Company Inc. P.O. Box 209 Scarsdale NY 10583; Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1974, to Mike Peskoe requesting our opinion that a draft label you plan to affix to the Bobby-Mac 2-in-1 Baby Chair will conform to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. Your letter indicates that although the Bobby-Mac 2-in-1 Baby Chair is not sold as a child seating system, you will be marketing a conversion kit which will enable purchasers to convert it into child seat use. With the conversion kit, the 2- in-1 Baby Chair will become the identical car child seat that you sell as the Bobby-Mac 2-in-1 Car Seat and the 3-in-1 Baby Chair.; We believe that attachment of the required label to the 2- in-1 Bab Chair, even though the chair is not a child seating system until the conversion kit is purchased, is the most satisfactory method of achieving conformity with Standard No. 213. Both of the additions you will make to the existing Bobby- Mac label are in keeping with the purpose of Standard No. 213's labeling requirements, and we will consider the draft label you enclose to conform to the labeling requirements of Standard No. 213 provided that the month and year of manufacture are included on the label.; As a suggestion, it seems to us that there should be a Part No reference to the conversion kit on the label. This might reduce any confusion with the other conversion kits that you offer for the other Bobby-Mac devices.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours Truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0992OpenMr. John F. McCuen, Kelsey-Hayes Company, Romulus, MI 48174; Mr. John F. McCuen Kelsey-Hayes Company Romulus MI 48174; Dear Mr. McCuen: This is in reply to your letters of October 23, 1972 and January 25 1973, concerning the intent of the antilock performance requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. I apologize for our delay.; Your question arises from an amendment to S5.3.1 of the standard. A originally adopted in February 1971, the section required that the vehicle be capable of stopping without wheel lockup except for 'momentary' lockup allowed by an antilock system. As amended in February 1972, the word 'controlled' is used in place of 'momentary', so that the section now provides that stops are made; >>>without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 m.p.h. except fo controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system . . . .<<<; In making this change, the agency had in mind the type of antiloc system that was designed to permit one wheel on an axle to lock under some circumstance while the other wheels continued to turn. It was thought that adequate control could be attained by such systems, and the standard was amended accordingly.; The question you raise is whether a system could be designed in whic all wheels could be permitted to lock for substantial periods, so long as they are 'controlled' by an antilock system. As you correctly indicate, the term 'controlled', unlike 'momentary', is not a time-related word. Our answer, therefore, is that such an antilock system would be permitted under the standard as it now stands.; It is our present opinion, however, that such a system would probabl not provide an acceptable level of performance. If it appears that such a system would be installed, it is likely that we would undertake rulemaking action to prohibit it.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3347OpenMr. Gene S. Rosenfeld, President, Elgene Tire Company, Milltown Road, Union, New Jersey 07083; Mr. Gene S. Rosenfeld President Elgene Tire Company Milltown Road Union New Jersey 07083; Dear Mr. Rosenfeld: This responds to your August 15, 1980 letter to this office requestin an interpretation of the requirements of Standard 120 (49 CFR S571.120). Specifically, you were concerned about paragraph S5.1.3, which permits the use of used tires on new vehicles other than passenger cars. The interpretations set forth below follow the same order used in your letter.; (1) New motor vehicles subject to Standard 120, which includes al motor vehicles other than passenger cars, may be equipped with used tires, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard, *provided*, that the used tires are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser and that they are installed on the vehicle at the request of the purchaser. This means that a vehicle manufacturer may not itself purchase used tires to install on new vehicles, nor may a vehicle purchaser authorize the manufacturer to install used tires not owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle.; (2) There is no limitation as to the axles on which used tires may b used. It would be permissible for a vehicle purchaser to ask a vehicle manufacturer to install the purchaser's used tires on each axle of the vehicle. The only requirement for axles in section S5.1.3 is that each axle must be equipped with tires, new or used, the sum of whose load ratings is at least equal to the gross axle weight rating for that axle.; (3) The used tires installed pursuant to paragraph S5.1.3 must b marked with the DOT number to indicate that the tires were originally manufactured in compliance with Standard 119. The January 1, 1978 date to which you referred means that all vehicles manufactured after that date and equipped with used tires under S5.1.3, must be equipped with used tires that originally complied with Standard 119 and have the DOT marking. The requirement does not mean that the used tires must have been originally manufactured on or after January 1, 1978, as you stated in your letter.; (4) for purposes of this section of Standard 120, used tires have bee interpreted to include retreaded tires. To repeat what I stated under answer number '1' above, your statement that the vehicle purchaser may use retreaded tires on his vehicle if he requests the manufacturer to install retreaded tires is not entirely accurate. The retreaded tires may only be used if they are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser.; The penalties for failure to comply with Standard 120 could be up t $1,000 for each violation, pursuant to the authority of sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1398). Since Standard 120 applies to vehicles, the vehicles manufacturer would be responsible for any violation. This agency considers each separate use of an unauthorized tire on a vehicle to be a separate violation. For example, if a vehicle had six tires and each failed to comply with the requirements of Standard 120, the vehicle would have six violations, and civil penalties of up to $6,000 could be assessed against the vehicle manufacturer.; Enforcement of Standard No. 120 is under the general provisions of th Vehicle Safety Act. There are no special enforcement procedures. The agency has investigators who check vehicles to ensure that they comply with the applicable standards. If there is a noncompliance, the agency has the authority to sue the violator in a Federal court to collect the civil penalties, pursuant to section 105 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394).; If the new vehicles were shipped without tires, as you suggested in th last question in your letter, Standard 120 would not apply to the vehicles. Section S5.1.1 specifies that the requirements of this standard apply to 'each vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service.' Only vehicles so equipped are subject to Standard 120.; You should be aware of the fact that this agency will soon publish notice proposing changes in the requirements of section S5.1.3 of Standard 120. If your would like a copy of that proposal after it is published, or have any further questions on this matter, please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4482OpenMr. Brian Hall President, VS Technology 3046 E. Dover St. Mesa, AZ 85213; Mr. Brian Hall President VS Technology 3046 E. Dover St. Mesa AZ 85213; "Dear Mr. Hall: This is in reply to your recent undated letter to Mr Vinson of this Office. You have described a safety apparatus and have requested 'approval' from the Department. The apparatus is a red light that is worn on the back of a rider on small open vehicles such as motorcycles. The light connects to the stop lamp system on the vehicle and is activated at the same time as the vehicle's stop lamp. The Department has no authority to 'approve' or 'disapprove' specific concepts or equipment. However, it can advise whether such is permissible or impermissible under Federal statutes or Departmental regulations. Yours is a unique device, and there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to it. Our primary concern is whether its operation would in any way interfere with the effectiveness of the vehicle's stop lamp, such as a power drain that would make that light less bright. Because the apparatus is 'apparel not a system part...which is intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers...from risk of accident, injury, or death', it meets the statutory definition of 'motor vehicle equipment.' This means that the apparatus is subject to Federal notification and remedy provisions in the event a determination is made that it incorporates a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Because the Department has no authority to regulate how a vehicle is used on the public roads, you may wish to investigate whether the apparatus is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to provide you with an answer. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. We appreciate your interest in improving safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5339OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; "Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of January 6, 1994 asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992). Our response to each of your questions follows. 1. Your first question requested confirmation that a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) would meet the location requirements of S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) if it is located in the center one- half of the passenger compartment. Your question concerns the first required additional emergency exit installed on a bus with a rear emergency exit door. Section S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires this exit to be a side emergency exit door 'located on the left side of the bus and as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment.' Locating the door or the 12-inch required aisle opening for the door in the center one- half of the passenger compartment would not ensure compliance with this requirement. This is because it may be possible to locate a door in the center one-half without locating the exit 'as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment.' In determining the permissible location for this exit, you should determine where the exit would be located if it was located at the midpoint of the passenger compartment. If it is not practicable to locate the exit there, you should move the door only as far as necessary for a practicable location. 2. Your second question requested confirmation that there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors other than the requirements for a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i). You are correct. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, the only location requirements for side emergency exit doors concern the side of the bus on which the exit must be located. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits. 3. Your third question requested confirmation that all side emergency exit doors, including any voluntarily installed, are required to comply with the requirements of the new final rule, including the seat placement requirements in S5.4.2.1(b). You are correct. Your letter referred to a March 9, 1977 interpretation that voluntarily installed side emergency exit doors were not required to meet the school bus requirements, but were required to meet the non-school bus requirements. Previously, the school bus emergency exit door requirements in Standard No. 217 referred to 'the emergency door.' At that time school buses were required to have either one rear emergency exit door or one side emergency exit door and one rear push-out window. Thus, any school bus was required to have only one emergency exit door. The reference to 'the emergency door' was to the required door. In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements for emergency exits apply to 'each' emergency exit. See, for example, S5.4.2.1(b). This change in the language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus. Other requirements apply to 'required' emergency exits. See, for example, S5.5.3(c). These requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
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.