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: aiam5569OpenThomas L. Wright, Acting Manager MVS Customer Services State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Division of Motor Vehicles Trenton, NJ 08666; Thomas L. Wright Acting Manager MVS Customer Services State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Division of Motor Vehicles Trenton NJ 08666; "Dear Mr. Wright: This responds to your request for information abou responsibilities of motorcycle manufacturers. As you discussed with Dorothy Nakama, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not 'regulate' how an enterprise becomes a 'recognized manufacturer.' Enclosed is NHTSA's information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, which discusses the main requirements of 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. (formerly the Vehicle Safety Act). A copy of the Act is enclosed. Under section 30112(a) of the Act, a motorcycle manufacturer may not manufacture a motorcycle for sale unless the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and is covered by a certification issued under 49 U.S.C. section 30115. One safety standard is Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements. (See 49 CFR 571.115.) In our regulations, at 49 CFR part 567 Certification, NHTSA has promulgated the requirement that a manufacturer certify compliance of its motorcycle with all applicable safety standards. Under part 566, NHTSA requires manufacturers to submit certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce. Also enclosed is a copy of a July 13, 1992 interpretation letter to Mr. Jeffrey Puentes, discussing serial numbers on motorcycle frames versus motorcycle VINs. As you may be aware, 'certificates of origin' are matters relating to vehicle titling, which the State regulates, rather than NHTSA. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0291OpenMr. Y. Nakajima, Manager, Engineering Department, Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., 4-8-3, Takanawa, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, 108 Japan,; Mr. Y. Nakajima Manager Engineering Department Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 4-8-3 Takanawa Minato-Ku Tokyo 108 Japan ; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of January 22, 1971, to Mr. Charles A Baker of this Office concerning questions on paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; 'Red' was inadvertently included in paragraph S4.1.1.7 of the amendmen to Standard No. 108 published on October 31, 1970. It is anticipated that this paragraph will be further amended in the near future by changing '...requirements for Class A red turn signal lamps...' to '...requirements for Class A turn signal lamps...'; The answers to your questions are therefore as follows: >>>1. Amber turn signal lamps shall conform to the minimum candlepowe requirements for Class A amber as specified in Table 2 of SAE J575d.; 2. There is no maximum candlepower requirement for amber front tur signal lamps.<<<; Sincerely, Roger H. Compton, Director, Office of Operating Systems Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2756OpenMr. Brian Gill, Manager, Certification Department, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., P.O. Box 50, 100 W Alondra Blvd, Gardena, California 90247; Mr. Brian Gill Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co. Inc. P.O. Box 50 100 W Alondra Blvd Gardena California 90247; Dear Mr. Gill: This is in reply to your letter of January 20, 1978, asking for a interpretation of the requirements in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*, for motorcycle headlamp upper-lower beam switches.; Standard No. 123 requires this control to be pushed 'up' for the uppe beam and 'down' for the lower beam. You have stated with respect to the design which you submitted that 'when the lower beam is on, the control surface is parallel to the housing. To switch to the high beam the top of the control is pushed ... to switch to the lower beam the bottom of the control is pushed.' You asked if this design is within the scope of the operation described in Standard No. 123.; It appears from your description that up and down motions of the thum operate the upper and lower beams respectively and that the design conforms to Standard No. 123's requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5093OpenMr. Jordan J. Pokrinchak President, Jordan Research Corp. 415 Howe Avenue Shelton, CT 06484; Mr. Jordan J. Pokrinchak President Jordan Research Corp. 415 Howe Avenue Shelton CT 06484; "Dear Mr. Pokrinchak: This responds to your letter of November 7, 1992 with respect to the Tekonsha electronic brake control. You apparently wrote in reference to my letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, Inc., the manufacturer of the Tekonsha brake control, in which I discussed that section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) that prohibits certain named commercial entities from 'rendering inoperative' safety equipment on motor vehicles. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). You believe that this agency has 'approved' this brake control. Based on your belief that the Tekonsha brake control poses a safety hazard on the public roads, you asked us to reconsider our decision to 'approve' this brake control. Let me begin by emphasizing that this agency has no authority to 'approve,' endorse or offer assurances of compliance to any items of motor vehicle equipment. All that our letters of interpretation purport to do is to answer questions from manufacturers and other members of the public as to whether the manufacture, sale, and/or installation of equipment is permissible under applicable Federal laws and regulations. Our letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, was a letter of interpretation, which concluded that 'it now appears that the sale of the Tekonsha Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.' This letter and conclusion can in no way be read as 'approving,' endorsing, or recommending the use of the Tekonsha system. You believe that 49 CFR 393.25(f) 'is quite specific when dealing with the actuation of the trailer stop lamps, either manually or automatically,' and has nothing to do with the 'render inoperative' prohibition of section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. The regulation you have identified (49 CFR 393.25(f)) is administered by another Federal agency, the Federal Highway Administration, acting under statutory authority other than the Safety Act. Obviously, only that agency can give an official interpretation of its regulations. However, based on my understanding of the Tekonsha system, it does not appear that the use of the Tekonsha system would be affected by the regulations in Part 393. Part 393, including 393.25, applies only to commercial motor vehicles. I understand that the Tekonsha control is used on smaller, personal vehicles, like pickups and vans, to tow trailers such as campers, travel trailers, and so forth. If my understanding is correct, the Federal Highway Administration's regulations would not apply. If you wish to receive an official interpretation of this matter, you may contact: Mr. James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. With respect to your request that we reconsider our previous conclusion that the sale of the Tekonsha control would not violate the 'render inoperative' prohibition of the Safety Act, we do not now have, nor are we aware of, any data indicating that there is a real-world safety problem created by use of the Tekonsha brake control. Hence, we have no reason to change the conclusion announced in the April 3 letter to Echlin about the legality of the Tekonsha control. We would be willing to review this matter again if data become available indicating a potential problem. Thus, if you learn of any specific safety problems that have arisen for vehicles equipped with the Tekonsha control, please let us know. Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns. I hope that this further explanation of our April 3 letter is helpful. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking"; |
|
ID: aiam1879OpenMr. Michael D. McDonald, Assistant Counsel, Regulatory Service Bureau, New York Dept. of Transportation, 1220 Washington Avenue, State Campus, Albany, NY 12226; Mr. Michael D. McDonald Assistant Counsel Regulatory Service Bureau New York Dept. of Transportation 1220 Washington Avenue State Campus Albany NY 12226; Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1975, asking whether consistently with Federal law, the New York Commissioner of Transportation may waive a safety rule which is based on a Federal safety regulation. You indicate that New York has rules which permit waivers of New York requirements. The case in point involves a waiver given to a bus owner who, because his vehicle was to be used only in the transportation of nursery school children, requested that the allowable occupant weight be set at 100 pounds rather than 120 pounds. The waiver was provided by giving the owner-operator of the vehicle a valid certificate of inspection.; The facts of the case, particularly how the vehicle in question i equipped and labeled, are not altogether clear from what you have told us. It appears that the manufacturer of the bus has labeled it with a gross vehicle weight rating that, contrary to the Federal certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567(g)(3)), does not equal the unloaded vehicle weight plus 120 pounds times the number of designated seating positions in the bus.; It appears from your correspondence that the certificate of inspectio issued by the New York authorities fulfills purposes that differ from those of the Federal certification regulations. There is no Federal requirement that the State inspection rules incorporate the Federal requirements, as long as they do not conflict with the Federal safety standards or associated regulations. However, if the manufacturer has violated the Federal law, he is subject to its sanctions, and nothing the State can do would 'forgive' the violation. If our assumptions concerning the facts of the case are correct, the State is free to deal as it sees fit with the fact that the bus does not conform to the Federal regulations.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3844OpenMr. Masakatsu Kano, Executive Vice President, MMC Services Inc., Suite 1960, 3000 Town Center, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. Suite 1960 3000 Town Center Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Kano: This responds to your letter of April 13, 1984, addressed to Mr. Roma Brooks of NHTSA's Office of Enforcement. You stated that you were submitting the letter 'to assure that the Agency and Mitsubishi agree in writing as we did verbally' concerning the compliance of a proposed electronic odometer design with Standard No. 101, *Controls and Displays*. You also stated that lead time dictates an imminent decision on design plans, that the agency's 'early approval/response' to your selected solution is greatly appreciated, and that if you do not hear to the contrary within 30 days, you will assume the agency's concurrence. As discussed below, your letter indicates a serious misunderstanding of both Federal statutory requirements and NHTSA policies and procedures. Moreover, your apparent interpretation of Standard No. 101 is incorrect.; First, NHTSA does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicl equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements.; NHTSA is willing to provide interpretations and opinions in response t reasonable requests. However, such interpretations and opinions are only provided in writing and only by NHTSA's Chief Counsel. The agency does not consider itself bound by verbal statements made by agency employees or by interpretations made by persons other than the Chief Counsel.; Moreover, NHTSA does not offer interpretations by remaining silent i response to letters which assert that such silence is assumed to be concurrence. The agency considers the inclusion of such purported conditions to be inappropriate and does not consider itself bound by them.; The agency regrets if Mr. Brooks' conversation contributed to th misunderstandings apparent in your letter. In the future, questions of interpretation should be addressed in writing to the Chief Counsel.; Your question of interpretation concerns a proposed design for a electronic odometer which would display either miles or kilometers. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; According to your letter, the vehicle's speedometer would display, a the option of the driver, in either miles per hour or kilometers per hour. The selected unit of measure would be identified by a lighted display reading either 'MPH' or 'Km/h'. The digits of the odometer would correspond to the units of measure selected for the speedometer, but the odometer itself would not identify its units of measure. As discussed below, such a design would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, since that standard requires an odometer that indicates kilometers to be identified by 'KILOMETERS' or 'km'.; Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires that 'each passenger car multi-purpose passenger vehicle and truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2, shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display.' Odometers are one of the displays listed in column 1 of Table 2.; Section S5.2.3 references the requirements of Table 2. Footnote 3 o Table 2 specifies the following requirement for odometers:; >>>If the odometer indicates kilometers, then 'KILOMETERS' (or) 'km shall appear, otherwise no identification is required.<<<; Section S5.2.3 further provides that '(t)he identification required o permitted by this section shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies.; Standard No. 101 thus requires odometers indicating kilometers to b identified by 'KILOMETERS' or 'km', and such identification must be placed on or adjacent to the odometer. Since your proposed design would indicate kilometers, it would be necessary to identify its units of measure according to these requirements.; I would note that these requirements cannot be met merely by placin the odometer adjacent to the speedometer. While the identification of the selected units of measure for the speedometer could be placed adjacent to both the speedometer and odometer, the identification requirements are different for the two displays. Table 2 requires that a speedometer graduated in miles per hour and kilometers per hour be identified by 'MPH and km/h' in any combination of upper or lower case letters. As discussed above, the requirement for odometers is 'KILOMETERS' or 'km'. A single identification of units of measure cannot meet these requirements simultaneously.; Please note that this opinion is limited to the specific issue raise by your letter and does not consider whether the proposed design would otherwise meet the requirements of Standard No. 101.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5586OpenGiuseppe Di Vito Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A. Sede e Stabilimenti 66050 San Salvo (Chieti) Zona Industriale; Giuseppe Di Vito Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A. Sede e Stabilimenti 66050 San Salvo (Chieti) Zona Industriale; Dear Mr. Di Vito: This responds to your May 22, 1995, letter requestin an interpretation regarding the testing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, 'Glazing Materials.' I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that you have been requested to manufacture for BMW some type 15A side window security glazing with an internal spall shield coating. Because of the adhesive with which it is applied, this coating cannot pass test number 4 of ANSI Z.26.1-1977 (the boil test). Nevertheless, you urge that test number 5 (the bake test) be used as a substitute for purposes of compliance certification. The boil test and the bake test are not equivalent, and your glazing would have to meet the boil test. Although both tests subject the glazing to the same heat for the same period, the bake test applies the heat using an oven, whereas the boil test applies the heat using boiling water. Section 5 of Z.26 explicitly states that the boil test is to be used for safety glass and that the bake test is only to be used for multiple glazed units. The illustrations that you enclosed with your letter show that your glazing is not a multiple glazed unit. Therefore, it has to meet the boil test to be certified for use on motor vehicles sold in this country. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to write Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or call him at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2243OpenMr. Jack Manne, Engineering Department, Almac Plastics Inc., 47-42 37th Street, Long Island City, NY 11101; Mr. Jack Manne Engineering Department Almac Plastics Inc. 47-42 37th Street Long Island City NY 11101; Dear Mr. Manne: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1976, to Mr. Guy Hunte of my staff, concerning the use of Lucite AR (plastic) glazing materials in rear windows of buses.; You state that a rubber harness has been designed to allow the plasti glazing to be inserted into the rear window openings of the bus. You further state that once inserted into the rubber harness, the glazing can be easily pushed out and therefore would fall within the definition of readily removable windows. Thus, plastic glazing could be used in such windows.; It is not clear whether the rear bus window you described in you letter would be classified as a readily removable window as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. However, if the glazing can be pushed out as easily as you say, it is clear that it would not meet the window retention requirements specified in FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.; Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for glazing and the vehicl locations in which various types of glazing may be used. The standard prohibits the use of plastic glazing in rear windows of buses unless they are readily removable as defined in the standard. However, in response to a petition submitted by General Motors Corporation, we are currently preparing a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that would amend the standard to permit the use of plastic glazing in all bus windows except windshields and windows to the immediate left and right of the driver. We anticipate that this NPRM will be published in the *Federal Register* in the near future.; A copy of Standard No. 205 and Standard No. 217 were previously maile to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0784OpenJ. Donald Waldman, President, Resources Applications, Designs & Control, Incorporated, 7045 Marcello Street, Paramount, CA 90723; J. Donald Waldman President Resources Applications Designs & Control Incorporated 7045 Marcello Street Paramount CA 90723; Dear Mr. Waldman: This is in response to your letter of July 21, 1972 requesting determination as to the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*, to sleeper berth equipment manufactured for installation on truck tractors.; An amendment to Standard No. 206 was issued in January 1972 (37 F.R 284), which stated that the requirements of the Standard are applicable to any side door leading directly into a passenger compartment containing one or more seating accommodations.; From the information and photographs you provided, it appears tha although the sleeper berth equipment is a passenger compartment, it is designed as a completely separate unit not containing any seating accommodations, and would therefore be exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 206.; It should be noted, however, that if the sleeper berth equipment i installed in such a way that it is contiguous to the truck cab and can be entered by the driver from within the cab, then any side doors on the sleeper berth equipment would be side doors leading into a passenger compartment (the cab) containing seating accommodations and they would have to meet the requirements of the Standard.; For your information, I am enclosing a copy of this recent amendment t Standard No. 206.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1896OpenHonorable Richard Stone, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Richard Stone United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Stone: This is in response to your letter of April 3, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from Mr. Gurth G. West commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal bumper standard by urging that recyclability of bumpers be assured.; Although promulgation of rules that have a direct positive impact o the environmental and energy situation is not within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) jurisdiction, the agency gives serious consideration to the effect any of its standards will have on these important areas of concern.; The NHTSA's most recent proposal (March 12, 1975, 40 FR 11598, Docke No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6) ensures that a wide variety of materials, including metals, could continue to be used in bumper systems.; We greatly appreciate your interest and that of Mr. West in thi matter. You can be sure that his comments will be given every consideration.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, 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.