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: aiam4573OpenMs. Theresa Rooney Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. l00 North Centre Avenue Rockville Centre, NY ll570; Ms. Theresa Rooney Alpine Electronics of America Inc. l00 North Centre Avenue Rockville Centre NY ll570; "Dear Ms. Rooney: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that it is your understanding that any car sound system which is factory installed must have light intensities that have two values, a higher one for day and a lower one for night, that these two light intensities do not have to be variable, and that any color may be used to illuminate the system. You asked for confirmation of this understanding. As discussed below, Standard No. l0l's requirements in this area are somewhat more flexible than suggested by your letter. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The requirements of Standard No. l0l that are relevant to car sound systems are set forth in section S5.3.5. That section states: S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (ll0.6 mm) rearward of the manikin 'H' point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated. With respect to car sound systems, section S5.3.5's requirements can be summarized as follows. First, the requirements generally apply to any car sound system that is installed in a motor vehicle before its first sale to a consumer and that includes a source of illumination which is forward of the driver. Second, the section requires that any such source of illumination have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. No color requirements are specified for the source of illumination of a car sound system. I would note that, at the option of the manufacturer, motor vehicles manufactured before September l, l989, may comply with the requirements of Standard No. l00 instead of the requirements of Standard No. l0l. This provision is of relevance for some, but not all, car sound systems, and only for vehicles manufactured before September l, l989. If you desire further information about this provision, please contact us. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1771OpenMr. Paul Utans, 55 Concord Street, Englewood, New Jersey 07631; Mr. Paul Utans 55 Concord Street Englewood New Jersey 07631; Dear Mr. Utans: This is in reply to your letter of January 7, 1975, asking whether Teves brake fluid container label that you enclosed conforms to paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116.; With the exceptions noted in your letter (packaged lot identification and date of packing) the label meets our requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4089OpenMr. H. Tsujishita, Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept., Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., 1. Daihatsu-Cho, Ikeda City, Osaka Prefecture, Japan; Mr. H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Daihatsu Motor Co. Ltd. 1. Daihatsu-Cho Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture Japan; Dear Mr. Tsujishita: Thank you for your letter of October 25, 1985, concerning th requirements of Standard No. 208 and Part 581. In addition, your letter asked about the status of a response to your July 17, 1985 letter. Unfortunately, my office had not previously received a copy of your letter of July 17, 1985. This letter addresses the Standard No. 208 questions you raised. We will shortly be responding to your other questions as well.; You asked about the automatic restraint phase-in requirements o Standard No. 208. You said that it is not clear how the requirements of S4.1.3 of the standard would apply to a manufacturer that will first start manufacturing cars for the United States during the phase-in period. On April 12, 1985 (50 FR 14589), the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking which would affect the way in which a manufacturer calculates the amount of passenger cars that must be produced with automatic restraints during the phase-in period. The notice proposed that instead of using a three year average of its passenger car production for the U.S., a manufacturer could use its actual production during each of the three years of the phase-in to calculate the amount of cars that must have automatic restraints. In the case of a new manufacturer, the manufacturer would not have three prior years of U.S. production and thus would have to use its actual production during each of the affected years. We have just issued a final rule adopting that proposal. I have enclosed a copy of that final rule.; For illustrative purposes, the proposal, if adopted, would have th following effect on the examples you used. In your first example, you assumed a new manufacturer starts manufacturing passenger cars for the U.S. on August 1, 1987, and produces 3,000 cars a month. For the first phase-in period (September 1, 1986 - August 31, 1987), the manufacturer would have produced 3,000 cars and would have to equip 10% of them (300 cars) with automatic restraints. For the second phase-in period (September 1, 1987 - August 31, 1988), the manufacturer would produce 36,000 passenger cars (12 x 3,000/vehicles per month) and would have to equip 25% of them (9,000 cars) with automatic restraints. For the final phase-in period (September 1, 1988 - August 31, 1989), the manufacturer would also produce 36,000 passenger cars and would have to equip 40% of them (14,400 cars) with automatic restraints.; In your second example, a new manufacturer begins production o passenger cars for the U.S. on September 1, 1987, and produces 3,000 cars a month. During the second phase-in period, the manufacturer would have to equip 9,000 of its passenger cars with automatic restraints. During the final phase-in period, the manufacturer would have to equip 14,400 of its passenger cars with automatic restraints.; You also asked about the requirement of S4.5.1 that a vehicle must hav a maintenance label for any crash-deployed occupant protection system. You asked if the requirement only applies to air bags and does not apply to seat belt systems. The requirement applies to any crash deployed system. Thus, it applies to air bags and would also apply to an automatic safety belt that does not move into position until a crash occurs.; Finally, you asked about the warning system requirements of Standar No. 208 that would apply to a passenger car that has an automatic safety belt that meets the frontal crash protection requirement and also has a manual lap belt, provided in accordance with 4.1.2.1(c) to meet the side impact and rollover requirements of the standard. You noted that the manual belt would be required to meet the warning system requirements of S7.3, while the automatic belt would have to meet the warning system requirements of S4.5.3.3. You asked if the passenger cars must have two different safety belt warning systems with two warning lights and two audible signals.; The purpose of both warning system requirements is similar. Th requirements of S7.3 are meant to remind the driver to reengage a safety belt, in one case a manual belt and in the other a detached or released automatic belt. In addition, S4.5.3.3 is meant to warn a driver that a motorized belt is not in its locked position. Both warning system requirements specify the use of the same types of equipment, a 4 to 8 second audible warning and a continuous or flashing light. Since the purpose of the two warning system requirements is similar and they use the same equipment, the agency believes it is reasonable for a vehicle only to have one warning system, as long as it met the requirements of S5.4.3.3 and S7.3.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0863OpenMr. Jerry Yeoman, Product Manager, Sportsmobile, Andrews, IN, 46702; Mr. Jerry Yeoman Product Manager Sportsmobile Andrews IN 46702; Dear Mr. Yeoman: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'.; You ask whether mattress stuffing must meet the requirements of th Standard. Paragraph S4.1 of the Standard lists mattress covers only. This does not include the mattress stuffing.; You also ask whether the stuffing in a 'dual purpose passenger seat must meet the requirements of the Standard. Paragraph S4.1 includes 'seat cushions' and 'seat backs'. Since the Standard does apply to the filling material in seat cushions and seat backs, the stuffing in a 'dual purpose passenger seat' must also meet the requirements of the Standard even though it may be converted into a bed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4123OpenMichael A. Doherty, Esq., Kassel, Neuwirth & Geiger, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022; Michael A. Doherty Esq. Kassel Neuwirth & Geiger 845 Third Avenue New York NY 10022; Dear Mr. Doherty: This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in whic you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* (UTQGS). Specifically, you stated that your firm is the registered agent for a foreign tire manufacturer and that you would like clarification of what information the manufacturer is required to provide to this agency under the UTQGS.; Before responding specifically to the statements in your letter, would like to point out that the requirements for tire manufacturers to furnish UTQGS information to this agency are set forth in three different regulatory provisions. The first of these is 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2), which provides: 'Each brand name owner of tires and each manufacturer of tires for which there is no brand name owner shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to the ... tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before it is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.' This language makes clear that the only information the tire manufacturers must provide to this agency is information that will be provided for examination by prospective purchasers in accordance with 49 CFR S575.6(c).; The second regulatory provision addressing information to be provide by tire manufacturers is 49 CFR S575.6(c). That section provides that the tire manufacturer shall provide each of its dealers with a brochure setting forth the UTQGS information for each of its tires offered for sale by the dealer. The third regulatory provision is 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii), which requires that the information required by S575.6(c) shall list all possible grades for tires and restate verbatim the explanation for each performance area in which the tires are graded, as specified in Figure 2 of S575.104, although not necessarily in the same format as Figure 2. This section also requires that the information clearly and unambiguously indicate the grade in each performance area assigned to each of the manufacturer's tires sold by the dealer.; With this background, I will now address each of your statements, i the order they were presented in your letter. Each of my explanations will cite the applicable regulatory provision that is the authority for that explanation.; 1. To register each new tire design, or each change in the applicabl UTQG information with respect to an already registered tire design, the tire manufacturer must submit to DOT ten (10) copies of a brochure containing the tire design and UTQG information for the tire including the information set forth in the three paragraphs of 49 CFR S575.104, Figure 2, Parts I and II of the Regulations.; Response: Tire manufacturers are not required to 'register' tir designs with the agency. The manufacturers are only required to provide this agency with advance copies of the UTQGS information that will be furnished to their dealers. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2). If the tire manufacturer wishes to add a new tire design to the UTQGS information previously supplied to the agency, or to change some of the previously supplied information, the tire manufacturer must furnish this agency with 10 copies of a brochure showing *all* of the manufacturer's tire designs, including those designs for which the previously submitted information is unchanged, and the grades assigned to those tire designs. 49 CFR S575.6(c). This brochure must also include the explanations for the various possible grades set forth in Figure 2 of S575.104. 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a typical brochure furnished to this agency by a tire manufacturer.; 2. Such brochures must be sent to all U.S. dealers of th manufacturer's tires and be delivered to purchasers when they examine and/or buy the manufacturer's tires. The brochures must be sent to the dealers with the first lot of each new design.; Response: The brochures must be sent to all dealers of th manufacturer's tires and furnished to all prospective and actual purchasers of those tires upon request. Brochures incorporating information on new tire designs must be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires not later than the first day on which the manufacturer authorizes the tires to be put on general public display and sold to consumers. 49 CFR S575.6(c).; 3. The ten (10) copies of the UTQG brochure must be submitted to DOT a least 30 days before such brochure is first provided to tire purchasers for examination.; Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2). 4. Photographs of tires are not required to be submitted to DOT. Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requiremen that photographs of tires be provided to this agency.; 5. UTQG labels are not required to be submitted to DOT. Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requiremen that UTQGS labels be provided to this agency.; 6. If a tire manufacturer intends to market a tire that is alread registered under a new or private brand name, all that is required is a letter to DOT setting forth the pattern code, tire size(s) and UTQG characteristics of the tire already registered and indicating that the tire will be sold under the additional brand name.; Response: This statement is inaccurate. If changed marketing practice by the tire manufacturer cause the UTQGS brochures submitted to its dealers and this agency to be either incomplete or incorrect, the tire manufacturer must revise its brochure. Ten copies of the revised brochure must be submitted to this agency 30 days before the marketing change takes effect, and revised brochures must be provided to each of the manufacturer's dealers not later than the day on which the marketing change takes effect. 49 CFR SS 575.6(c) and (d)(2). The tire manufacturer may enclose a letter with its brochure explaining the change, but such a letter is not required.; 7. If a private brand tire made by the tire manufacturer gets a ne tire design, the manufacturer does not have to provide the updated UTQG information to DOT -- the brand name owner for the tire design would be required to provide the information.; Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR SS 575.6(c) and (d)(2). Should you have any further questions or need more information in thi area, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1321OpenMr. Darrell Gambill, Standards Engineer, Crane Carrier Company, P.O. Box 4508, Tulsa, OK 74104; Mr. Darrell Gambill Standards Engineer Crane Carrier Company P.O. Box 4508 Tulsa OK 74104; Dear Mr. Gambill: This is in reply to your letter of November 7, 1973, to Mr. Schneide asking whether Standard No. 108 permits four identification lamps.; It does not. The purpose of the three-lamp system is that vehicles 8 inches or more in overall width be clearly identified as large vehicles, and only the three-lamp system specified by the standard is permissible. Standard No. 108, however, allows some latitude in mounting. The system need not be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle if the manufacturer determines that is impracticable. Since you appear to have made such a determination, the front identification lamp system should be placed 'as close as practicable to the vertical centerline' with height and spacing requirements in accordance with Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5362OpenMr. Jerry Schwebel Executive Vice President Travel Safety Children's Products, Inc. 1276 Fiftieth Street Brooklyn, NY 11219; Mr. Jerry Schwebel Executive Vice President Travel Safety Children's Products Inc. 1276 Fiftieth Street Brooklyn NY 11219; "Dear Mr. Schwebel: This responds to your letter to Mr. Walter Myers o my staff asking about a particular feature of your 'air-filled car seat' and how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems,' would apply. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your letter and the promotional literature you enclosed describe the car seat as having a 5-point belt system to provide upper and lower torso restraint. The seat also has a strap that crosses in front of the child's chest, that attaches to each side of the child seat 'to offer additional side impact protection by keeping the leading side of the seat attached to the opposite side so as to prevent the child from rolling out.' You state that the strap is not part of the primary restraint system and is non-load bearing in a frontal impact. You ask if there is any problem with the strap feature. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter. Standard 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. S5.2.2, 'Torso impact protection,' states in part that each add-on, forward-facing child restraint system shall have no fixed or movable surface... d irectly forward of the dummy and intersected by a horizontal line...parallel to the SORL seat orientation reference line illustrated in Figure 1A of the standard ... and passing through any portion of the dummy, except for surfaces which restrain the dummy when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1.2.1.2, so that the child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.1. The purpose of S5.2.2 is to prohibit child seats from having any surface or component that can be mistaken by motorists to be a means of adequately restraining the child occupant in a crash. 43 FR 21470, 21475 (May 18, 1978). A strap in front of the dummy would be prohibited by S5.2.2, unless it is provided to restrain the dummy in S6.1.2.1.2's dynamic test so that the system conforms to Standard 213's injury criteria for head and chest accelerations and occupant excursion. Since you indicate the strap is not meant to be load bearing in a frontal impact, it does not appear that the strap would perform adequately. Accordingly, it appears the strap is prohibited. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please call Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0160OpenHonorable Jacob K. Javits, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510; Honorable Jacob K. Javits United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510; Dear Senator Javits: #This is in further reply to your transmitta memorandum and attached letter from Mr. Robert W. Muller, New York, New York, inquiring about consumer information on passenger car tires. #The Department of Transportation does not presently have a publication which would guide the consumer in selecting tires most suitable to his needs. #To provide the consumer with an indication of the performance characteristics of tires, the Federal Highway Administration is obtaining research data and has established Docket 25, Uniform Tire Quality Grading System - Passenger Cars. A copy of the notice from the Federal Register is enclosed. #As soon as a meaningful system of tire quality grading can be developed to assist the public, it will be made available. #Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director; |
|
ID: aiam4820OpenThomas R. Mounteer, Esq. Keller & Heckman 1150 17th Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D. C. 20037; Thomas R. Mounteer Esq. Keller & Heckman 1150 17th Street N.W. Suite 1000 Washington D. C. 20037; Dear Mr. Mounteer: This responds to your letter on behalf of you client, Heritage Motors, that asked whether Heritage, given the nature of its manufacturing process, must assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs). I apologize for the delay in this response. As discussed below, since Heritage considers the vehicles it manufactures to be: (l) 'new' vehicles and (2) manufactured in one stage, it must assign its own VINs to the cars. I note that this letter addresses the vehicles Heritage assembles and not the 'kits' which Heritage also sells. According to your letter, Heritage Motors makes replica Mercedes 500K passenger cars, using 1970-1981 Chevrolet Camaros as donor cars. An information brochure accompanying your letter describes the parts that are removed from the Camaros and then reused in the Mercedes replica. Since Heritage uses a new body, engine, transmission, and many other new or remanufactured parts, you have considered the completed vehicle to be a 'new' motor vehicle. Moreover, Heritage manufactures the vehicles in one stage. Under section S4.l of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. ll5, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, each vehicle manufactured in one stage must have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Heritage must therefore assign its own VIN numbers to the cars it manufactures. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0530OpenMr. Michael Petler, Assistant Manager, Product Development Department, U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation, 13767 Freeway Drive, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Mr. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Product Development Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 13767 Freeway Drive Santa Fe Springs CA 90670; Dear Mr. Petler: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1971, enclosing copie of consumer information documents you plan to use to comply with the Consumer Information requirements applicable to motorcycles. You state that you plan to place the information for particular models back to back on the same sheet of paper in order that they may correspond to your specification sheets.; The documents you have submitted, when they contain the appropriat values, will comply with the Consumer Information regulations. There is no prohibition against placing the information for two models back to back on the same sheet as you plan to do.; We are pleased to be of assistance. 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.