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: 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 |
|
ID: aiam3550OpenMr. John A. Pachuta, Director, Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations, Department of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA 17123; Mr. John A. Pachuta Director Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations Department of Transportation Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg PA 17123; Dear Mr. Pachuta: This is in reply to your letter of March 8, 1982, asking the curren status of three-wheeled motor vehicles under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; As you know from my letter of November 24, 1976, to HM Vehicles, a cop of which you enclosed, three-wheeled motor vehicles are classified as 'motorcycles' under the standards. Obviously the configuration of a three-wheeled enclosed vehicle differs greatly from that of the two-wheeled machine that comes to mind when the word 'motorcycle' is mentioned. As my 1976 letter indicates, the agency was seeking a more realistic regulatory scheme for three- wheeled vehicles, for obviously our motorcycle standards were written with two-wheeled vehicles in mind. But because three- wheeled vehicles did not comprise a significant part of the market, the agency decided that its priorities in motor vehicle safety lay elsewhere, no change in the definition of 'motorcycle' was ever adopted, and it still encompasses three-wheeled vehicles.; You have also asked whether a three-wheeled vehicle can be registere and inspected as a passenger car. Under the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), Pennsylvania is bound to treat three-wheeled vehicles as 'motorcycles' in those areas that are covered by Federal safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Further, it may apply its own motorcycle standards in areas not covered by Federal standards. This means, for example, that Pennsylvania could not require a three-wheeled vehicle to have two headlamps since one is adequate under our Safety Standard 108. On the other hand, Pennsylvania could require a backup lamp device since Standard No. 108 contains no such requirement for motorcycles. Thus, it would seem that Pennsylvania should register and inspect these vehicles as motorcycles to the extent possible.; PAGE 2 WAS INADVERTENTLY MISSING FROM ORIGINAL |
|
ID: aiam4295OpenMr. James E. Campbell, 2719 So. 29th Street, Ft. Pierce, FL 33450; Mr. James E. Campbell 2719 So. 29th Street Ft. Pierce FL 33450; Dear Mr. Campbell: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1986, in which you hav asked the following question:; 'If someone has a patent on an invention, as in the case of the tur signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A. make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to that invention, or does he lose those rights once it becomes mandatory?'; The answer to your question is that rights given under a patent issue by the United States Patent Office cannot be divested by the actions of a governmental agency such as the N.H.T.S.A. Were we to require that a patented item of equipment be standard on all passenger cars, the patent holder would retain all rights. However, it is important that you understand that the agency does not mandate the adoption of equipment of a proprietary nature. By law, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are defined as minimum standards for motor vehicle *performance*, to the extent practicable the standards specify performance requirements to be met (*e.g.*, no more than 5 ounces of fuel spillage in the first 5 minutes following a 30 mph frontal barrier collision), leaving the design solution to the manufacturer who may incorporate proprietary components if he chooses.; The performance requirements of our standards vary in their degree o specificity. In some instances the agency has had to develop fairly specific requirements to ensure uniformity and interchangeability of replacement equipment items such as brake hoses, tires, and lighting equipment. This can increase the likelihood of the incorporation of proprietary elements. Many of the changes which are made to the standard are made in response to petitions from manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. This is especially true in the area of motor vehicle lighting which is covered by Standard No. 108. In some instances, a petitioner may request a change which incorporates specifications which are covered by a patent. In these cases, the agency endeavors to insure that the technology is made available on a non-exclusive royalty-free basis to all who wish to use it before amending the standard.; I hope that this answers you question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1097OpenMr. Louis C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activities Staff, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. Louis C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1972, concerning th effect of Standard 215 on optional bumper guards. You have asked us to interpret the standard as permitting the removal of such guards during the pendulum tests.; We do not consider the standard as it presently stands to permit bumpe guards or other attachments (other than trailer hitches for which direct relief is given in S6.1.5) to be removed for testing. The standard requires the vehicle to meet the standard in its as-delivered condition, without any reference to bumpers or other specific components. Considering your inquiry as a petition for rulemaking to allow bumper guards that do not conform to the standard, we find such rulemaking action inadvisable on the basis of our present information, for the following reasons.; 1. There is no definition of 'bumper guard', and it would be difficul to formulate one with precision, so that the standard would be vague and unobjective as to what is permitted or prohibited.; 2. If the bumper guard were undefined, it could be hostile both t pedestrians and to other vehicles. Yet if it were defined, it is difficult to see how a configuration significantly different from that required by Standard 215 could be justified.; 3. Standard 215 was carefully drafted, with a great deal of usefu exchange of ideas between industry, other members of the public, and the NHTSA, to require a front and rear configuration that would provide a reasonably uniform protective surface, and good inter-vehicle matching, without an unreasonable cost penalty. To allow these surfaces to be covered with an undefined 'bumper guard' would destroy the uniformity that is at the heart of the standard.; 4. We have no concrete evidence at this time that a substantia aftermarket in bumper guards would spring up. With bumpers that are protective and uniform in height, it might well be that the public will resist altering their vehicles at extra expense to degrade the uniformity of the vehicles as manufactured.; On the basis of the information that we presently have, therefore, you request for the exemption of optional bumper guards from the requirements of Standard 215 is denied. You are welcome, however, to submit further detailed information as to the costs and benefits that would be involved in such an action.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Acting Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3100OpenMr. Daniel I. Borovik, Director of Development and Planning, Essex Group, Wire Assembly Division, 6233 Concord Avenue, Detroit, MI 48211; Mr. Daniel I. Borovik Director of Development and Planning Essex Group Wire Assembly Division 6233 Concord Avenue Detroit MI 48211; Dear Mr. Borovik: This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1979, asking whethe 'trailer warning lamps [should] flash or be steady-burning' when the towing vehicle's hazard warning system is actuated and the service brakes are applied.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require trailer to be equipped with hazard warning signal lamps, and you may design your trailer tow electrical package without reference to it. Lack of Federal regulation in this area, however, means that each State may set its own requirements, and you should ascertain whether such exist before finalizing your design.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.