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: aiam1644OpenMr. D. D. Evenson, President, Hawaiian Motors Corporation, 22121 South Vermont, Torrance, CA 90502; Mr. D. D. Evenson President Hawaiian Motors Corporation 22121 South Vermont Torrance CA 90502; Dear Mr. Evenson: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1974, forwarding draft defect notification letter regarding the noncompliance of certain Cony vehicles with several Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your letters (sic) fails in the following respects to conform to 49 CF 577, 'Defect Notification' (copy enclosed):; 1. Section 577.4(a) requires the following statement as the *first sentence of your letter: 'This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.'; 2. Section 577.4(b) requires your second sentence to read:'Hawaiia Motors Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the Cony utility vehicle(s) you purchased from HMC.' If there is any possibility of confusion you should give more precise vehicle identification. Moreover, in cases such as this where the safety defect results from the failure to conform to applicable standards we prefer that that information be conveyed as well. Therefore you should also state, as you have done, that the vehicles do not conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards for windshield wipers and washers and windshield and side window glazing materials.; 3. Your letter must include a clear, brief description of the defect(s which incorporates the four elements listed in section 577.4(c).; 4. Your letter does not evaluate the risk to traffic safety reasonabl related to the defect as required by section 577.4(d).; 5. Your letter also does not include measures to be taken to repair th defect as required by section 577(e). We had assumed that HMC would bring the vehicles into conformity with each of the standards free of charge. If so, the letter should conform to section 577.4(e)(1). If you plan some other course of action regarding repairs the letter must contain language meeting either section 577.4(e)(2) or (e)(3) as appropriate.; 6. Your letter contains several references to an understanding that th vehicles were purchased for highway use and that the NHTSA's interest is directed at potential future highway use. This is not true. The vehicles are motor vehicles (trucks) under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and are required to conform to all applicable safety standards regardless of their intended use by the University of California or any other purchaser. Conformity to applicable standards cannot, therefore, be deferred until the sale of these vehicles to other purchasers, but must be accomplished immediately.; We have two other concerns. First, our decision letter of July 2, 1974 states that 52 Cony vehicles were imported in violation of the Act. Since only 32 of these vehicles were purchased by the University of California, defect notification letters must also be sent to the purchasers of the other 20 vehicles. Section 113(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402(f)) requires you to keep records of first purchasers.; Second, 49 CFR 573 (copy enclosed) requires you to file a Defec Information Report as well as Quarterly Reports on the progress of your notification campaign. Please comply with section 573.4 within 5 working days after receipt of this letter. Prompt submission of both a Defect Report and a complying defect notification letter is necessary to keep our compromise offer in effect.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0956OpenMr. L.A. Volberding, Administrative Manager, Kar-Kraft, Inc., 10611 Haggerty Street, Dearborn, Michigan 48126; Mr. L.A. Volberding Administrative Manager Kar-Kraft Inc. 10611 Haggerty Street Dearborn Michigan 48126; Dear Mr. Volberding: "This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1972, to Mr. Schneide concerning the relationship j of a certain motorcycle fuel control system to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123. The system you describe incorporates an automatic fuel shutoff feature with a manual reserve control. You asked whether the fuel control system is permissible under Standard No. 123, and if it must be identified in accordance with the standard."; As Mr. Vinson of our staff advised you, Standard No. 123 does no require a fuel control system of a particular design, but if a manual fuel shutoff control is provided, it must be located and operated in the manner specified in Table 1. Since your system does not incorporate a manual shutoff control, it is not covered by the location and operational requirements of the Table. Table 3 does require identification of the 'fuel tank shutoff valve' which covers all valves regardless of the design of the fuel control system. We have no objection to your proposed method of identification.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3383OpenMr. T. Shimada, Senior Technical Manager, MMC Services Inc., 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. T. Shimada Senior Technical Manager MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Shimada: This responds to your letter of October 14, 1980, regarding the warnin devices required by Safety Standard No. 114, *Theft Protection*, and Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You ask whether the sound of a voice repeating the phrase 'please pull out the ignition key' or 'please fasten seat belt' at 2-3 second intervals could be used to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 114 and Standard No. 208. You also ask whether a buzzer or chime that signals an unfastened seat belt or the presence of the key in the ignition could also be used to give the driver other warnings, such as turning off the headlights.; Standard No. 114 does not specify the nature of the warning that mus be given to the driver in the event that the ignition key is left in the locking system. Thus the system you describe would comply with the rule. Note that the signal must be activated whenever the key has been left in the ignition and the driver's door is opened.; Standard No. 208 requires that the driver's seating position b equipped with a warning system that activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than four (4) seconds and not more than eight (8) seconds. The signal must begin when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the 'on' or 'start' position and the driver's belt is not in use. If the system you have devised stops the warning only when the belt has been fastened, it would not comply with this rule. The signal must end within eight (8) seconds, irregardless of whether the driver's belt has been fastened. Regarding your specific question, an audible 'voice' signal would be permitted under the standard.; The buzzers or chimes that are installed in accordance with Standar No. 214 (sic) or Standard No. 208 may also be used to warn the driver of other conditions.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any other questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4446OpenMs. Beth Whitman Marketing Services Manager Ken-Tool 768 East North Street Akron, Ohio 44305; Ms. Beth Whitman Marketing Services Manager Ken-Tool 768 East North Street Akron Ohio 44305; "Dear Ms. Whitman: This responds to your letter of September 25, l987 concerning the use of 'steel duck-billed hammers' to change farm and truck tires. You expressed concern that a competitor is using a safety chart produced by NHTSA to support its claim that the use of these tools is prohibited. The NHTSA safety chart, 'Safety Precautions for Mounting and Demounting Tube Type Truck/Bus Tires,' includes two specific references to hammers/hammering. Under the heading 'Deflation and Assembly,' the chart states: 'Never use a steel hammer to assemble or disassemble rim components--Use a lead, brass, or plastic type mallet. Proper tools are available through rim/wheel distributors.' Under the heading 'Assembly and Inflation,' the chart states: 'Never hammer on components of an inflated or partially inflated assembly.' These precautions apply to steel hammers and hammering in general, and the chart does not state that steel duck billed hammers should not be used for other applications in changing tires. We note that you enclosed a copy of a July l3, l987 letter from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), stating the following: OSHA does not prohibit the proper use of a steel duck billed hammer for servicing wheels used on large vehicles such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines. Under the OSHA regulations at 29 CFR l9l0.l77(d)(6), employers are required to furnish and assure that only tools recommended in the rim manual for the type of wheel being serviced are used to service rim wheels. Further, under 29 CFR l9l0.l77(f)(8), the regulations specify that: No attempt shall be made to correct the seating of side and lock rings by hammering, striking or forcing the components while the tire is pressurized. You state that you are concerned that your competitor's tool may not meet OSHA regulations and may be less than safe to use. We suggest that you contact OSHA about this concern. You may also wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning your belief that your competitor's advertising is misleading. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5484OpenMs. Frances J. Chamberlain 6724 63rd Place N.E. Marysville, Washington 98270; Ms. Frances J. Chamberlain 6724 63rd Place N.E. Marysville Washington 98270; "Dear Ms. Chamberlain: This responds to your letter asking about ho this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. You explained in a telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of this office that your product is an emergency kit the size of an 'oversize notebook.' The kit contains a radio. In completing your design, you are considering whether to attach it to the back side of the front seats or under those seats. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations as to the distance that must be kept clear between the back side of the driver's seat and the back seat. You are considering marketing the kit for passenger cars and light trucks through retail outlets, and possibly also through automobile dealerships as an optional accessory. The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations concerning clearance between the front and back seats, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. These are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As you recognize in your letter, your safety kit is an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. While your emergency kit is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. Nevertheless, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. S3.2 of that standard basically requires that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. If your emergency kit were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the radio) contained within it were to be struck by the head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We note that there are no safety standards regulating the underside of the seats, which you have said is another interior space where you are considering mounting the emergency kit. Which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the emergency kit installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201. A commercial business that installs your emergency kit would also be subject to provisions of the U.S. Code that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 30122(b) of Title 49 provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the emergency kit were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'make inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your emergency kit in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2341OpenMr. R. L. Ratz, Safety Engineering Specialist, ROHR Industries, Inc., Post Office Box 878, Chula Vista, CA 92012; Mr. R. L. Ratz Safety Engineering Specialist ROHR Industries Inc. Post Office Box 878 Chula Vista CA 92012; Dear Mr. Ratz: This responds to Rohr Industries' April 27, 1976, letter asking how t test an emergency exit that contains no glazing in conformity with the provision of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, that specifies testing before and after a window retention test (S5.3.2). You also ask whether the emergency exit identification requirements of S5.5.1 specify the placement of operating instructions at a designated seating position which does not qualify as an adjacent seat' under the definition found in S4 of the standard.; The window retention requirement is not required in the case of a emergency exit that contains no glazing. Because this requirement is clearly inapplicable to such an exit, the emergency exit release requirements of S5.3.2 must be met, but without the need to conduct a window retention test.; In answer to your second question, S5.5.1 requires that a labe indicating the location of the nearest exit release mechanism be placed at adjacent seats' to any exit whose release mechanism is not located within the occupant space of that adjacent seat. There are no labeling requirements in S5.5.1 for seating that is not adjacent' to the exit. As you note, some interior configurations result in seating whose occupant space' is not within 10 inches of any emergency exit (measured as set forth in S4). Such seating would not have to be labeled with the location of the nearest release mechanism, although some manufacturers do provide this information voluntarily. The agency has evaluated a requirement for this labeling but considers present labelling practices adequate at this time.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1994OpenMr. James W. Long, President, Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp. P.O. Box 104, Upper Sandusky, Ohio 43351; Mr. James W. Long President Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp. P.O. Box 104 Upper Sandusky Ohio 43351; Dear Mr. Long: #Please forgive the delay in responding to your lette of March 5, 1975, concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to brake hose and brake hose assemblies used in military vehicles. #Part 571.7(c) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 49 CFR 571.7(c), provides that: #>>>No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.<<<#Therefore, brake hose and brake hose assemblies sold to the military in conformity with contractual specifications are not subject to any of the requirements of Standard No. 106-74. While part 571.7(c) appears to exclude from the requirements of Standard No. 106-74 only that hose which is sold directly to the Armed Forced, the NHTSA interprets this section as also excluding that hose which is sold to military contractors, under contracts requiring it to conform to military specifications such as MIL-H-3992C, for installation in vehicles which are in turn sold directly to the military. We are considering the issuance of an interpretive amendment of Part 571.7(c) to this effect. #Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0686OpenMr. J. Donald Waldman, P.E., President, Resources Applications, Designs & Controls, Inc., 7045 Marcelle Street, Paramount, CA 90723; Mr. J. Donald Waldman P.E. President Resources Applications Designs & Controls Inc. 7045 Marcelle Street Paramount CA 90723; Dear Mr. Waldman: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1972, on the subject o the test procedures of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207 and 210.; Your first question is whether the center of gravity referred to i S5.1.2 of Standard 207 is the center of gravity of the seat bench alone or the center of gravity of the seat bench in combination with the supporting structure. It is often a close question in recreational vehicle seating where the seating system ends and the vehicle structure begins. In cases such as the one depicted in Attachment 1 to your letter, where the supporting structure consists of a storage cabinet that is integrated into the interior structure of the vehicle, it is our opinion that the storage cabinet should not be considered in determining the weight and center of gravity of the seat bench under S5.1.2.; Your second question asks us to concur in your opinion that separat tests are not required under Standards 207 and 210 when identical seats are installed in different vehicles. Our reply is that the number of tests you perform is a matter for you to decide, we do not, as a rule, comment on the adequacy of a test program. The standards do not require a manufacturer to test his product in a specific manner or with a specific frequency, so that failure to test is not, in itself, a violation. If our Office of Standards Enforcement should happen to test one of the vehicles in question, however, and it fails when tested in accordance with the standard, the manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties unless he can establish that he exercised due care in the design and manufacturer of the vehicle. Whatever your decision on the subject of testing, it should be carefully made.; Our reply to your third question follows the reasoning set forth above If we conduct a test in accordance with S4.2(d) and the seat fails, the manufacturer will have to establish that he exercised due care in making that seat. Without a set of specific facts before us, we cannot say what the result of our inquiry would be.; The label proposed for the rotating seat to indicate that it is not t be used while the vehicle is in motion except in the forward facing position would be an acceptable label under Standard 207.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3803OpenMr. Barry V. Davis, Vice President, Proto-Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 871, Pembroke, MA 02359; Mr. Barry V. Davis Vice President Proto-Systems Inc. P.O. Box 871 Pembroke MA 02359; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1983, with respect t the 'Headlight Kit' which you manufacture as 'an aftermarket add-on headlamp concealment device for the Camaro.' You have stated that it will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by Chevrolet dealers as a new car option. You have asked whether the product requires certification under Safety Standard No. 112, and, if so, how may it be included in your packaging and promotional material. If you are not required to certify, you would like to know if you may use the DOT symbol and the phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' on your packaging.; We have two types of safety standards: those that vehicles must meet and those that individual equipment items must meet. Safety Standard No. 112, *Headlamp Concealment Devices*, is an example of the former, when equipped with a headlamp concealment device, a vehicle must meet certain performance requirements. The vehicle must meet these requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and be certified as meeting the requirements. Certification of compliance with the vehicle safety standards is provided by the vehicle manufacturer, however, if the vehicles is altered before its sale, in more than a minor way, the alterer must provide an additional certification identifying himself as a modifier and that the vehicle as modified continues to meet the standards. Assuming that Chevrolet dealers perform the modification, it is they, not you, who must apply the alterer's label. The alterer's certification requirements are contained in 49 CFR Section 567.7.; Once a vehicle has been sold, no alterer's certification is required but the party performing the alterations is required to insure that he is not 'rendering inoperative in whole or in part' the headlighting system. We would interpret this to mean that if the concealment system's performance were not the equivalent of that obtainable under Standard No. 112 a violation might exist. The prohibition is established by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the prohibition does not preclude the vehicle owner from himself making any modification he chooses (subject, of course, to local law).; This means that regardless of whether your system is sold to new ca dealers or to retail stores in the aftermarket your company has no certification responsibility. Thus, the use of a DOT symbol would be improper and could even be viewed as technically false and misleading under Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, for which a civil penalty might be imposed. The phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' is also inaccurate. However, if your tests and other date clearly indicate that a Camaro would meet Standard No. 112 with the system in place, we would not object to your including a qualifying phrase such as 'Vehicle can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 if system is installed in accordance with instructions.' That would afford a basis upon which the new car dealer could rely in affixing his alterer's label, and would reassure an after-sale modifier that he was not violating the Act.; I hope that this has been helpful to you. For your information, enclose copies of Standard No. 112, 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, and the Act.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2711OpenMr. William C. Warden, Jr., McElwee, Hall & McElwee, 906 B. Street Rear, North Wilkesboro, NC 28659; Mr. William C. Warden Jr. McElwee Hall & McElwee 906 B. Street Rear North Wilkesboro NC 28659; Dear Mr. Warden: This responds to your recent letter asking whether the Holly Farm Service Center would qualify as a 'motor vehicle repair business' as that term is defined in Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.). This is an elaboration of our letter to you of November 8, 1977.; According to your description, the Holly Farms Service Center onl repairs and maintains vehicles owned by Holly Farms, except for an occasional repair as an accommodation to another company whose vehicle has broken down on the premises.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) specifies that 'motor vehicle repair business means; >>>'any person who holds himself out to the public as in the busines of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.'<<<; Based on your description of the function of the Holly Farms Servic Center, it would not be considered a 'motor vehicle repair business' for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. The fact that the Service Center occasionally repairs another company's vehicles does not change our interpretation, provided the Service Center does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of making such repairs for compensation.; Since the Service Center would not be considered a 'motor vehicl repair business', it could alter the braking systems on Holly Farms' vehicles without violating the 'render inoperative' provisions of Section 108(a)(2)(A).; 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.