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: aiam2879OpenMr. Paul Utans, Assoc. Vice President, Product Compliance, Subaru of America, Inc., 7040 Central Highway, Pennsauken, NJ 08109; Mr. Paul Utans Assoc. Vice President Product Compliance Subaru of America Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennsauken NJ 08109; Dear Mr. Utans: This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1978, with respect t Subaru's intention to offer 'a retracting center auxiliary lamp' on one of its models. You have asked us to comment on the lamp's nomenclature, switching, and compliance problems.; The lamp in question is not an item of lighting equipment required b Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and may be added as standard equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard does require. Whether this device would cause impairment we cannot say since you have told us nothing of its candlepower output or its color. If it is operable by a separate on/off switch it could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of the headlights by causing the operator to use it and rely on it at a time when the headlamps should be in use. We have no opinion on what you should call the lamp.; Even if permissible and not prohibited under Federal lightin requirements we believe that you should be aware of possible problems at the State level. An auxiliary driving light similar to the one you describe (though positioned closer to the right headlamps) was offered as optional equipment on 1960 Dodge cars, named the 'Super Lite', and intended to be used in conjunction with low beam headlights to increase the strength of the headlamp system without producing glare effects associated with high beams. The States of New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont prohibited the lamp primarily because its bluish color was judged close to that of the color reserved for use on emergency vehicles (see *Chrysler Corp. v. Rhodes*, 294 F. Supp. 665 (1968) and *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499 (1969)). We therefore suggest that Subaru review its plans with State officials.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3291OpenW. Brusstar, Legal Staff, General Motors Corp., 14-242 GM Building, Detroit, MI 48202; W. Brusstar Legal Staff General Motors Corp. 14-242 GM Building Detroit MI 48202; Dear Mr. Brusstar: This is in response to your telephone call of May 23, 1980, to Kath DeMeter of my staff concerning odometer information on state certificates of title.; The following states have odometer statements on their motor vehicl titles that are consistatnt (sic) with the requirements of the federal law:; >>>Maryland, Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Hawaii Minnesota, New York, North Dakota<<<; In addition, the following states submitted titles to the agency askin for approval but had inacceptable statements. Each was informed that if they supplied certain additional information their titles would be in conformance. We do not know whether that information was included on the titles:; >>>North Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, Washington, South Dakota, Utah Wisconsin<<<; In order to spare states the burden of an approval process the agenc has indicated that certain variations from the Federal form are acceptable. In the Federal Register notice of August 1, 1977, which amended the disclosure regulation, we gave examples of shortened forms that would be acceptable. A state title can be considered to be approved for use as a full disclosure statement if it varies from the Federal form in only those aspects noted in the August 1 notice, a copy of which is enclosed.; You also asked what the agency policy is with respect to enforcemen actions against transferors of vehicles who complete an odometer statement appearing on a state title that does not satisfy the federal requirements. You specifically requested an interpretation that we would refuse prosecution. Unfortunately we cannot grant the desired interpretation. It is our enforcement policy in those states where the title contains an odometer disclosure statement which complied with the origianl Federal regulation, to decline any enforcement action against an *individual owner* in the course of a *private sale* for executing the form on the state title in lieu of the current federal form.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4554OpenCONFIDENTIAL; CONFIDENTIAL; "Dear: This is in reply to your letters of July 12, and September 2 1988. In accordance with your request for confidentiality on the basis that your letter of July 12 contains confidential business information, your name, your company's name and address, and the name of the product concerned will be deleted from copies of this interpretation that are made publicly available. Your company wishes to install a leveling device that will lower the height of a motor vehicle to facilitate entry. It can be activated only when the parking brake is applied and the vehicle is at rest. Normal vehicle height is restored by driver activation of a control when the ignition is in the 'on' position. Should the operator attempt to drive away without activation of the control, release of the parking brake or registration of motion by a speed sensor ensures that normal vehicle height is restored within approximately l5 seconds. You state that the vehicle will conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards 'when the vehicle is in its configuration for operation on public roads..., meeting all the requirements relevant to height (i.e., lighting device mounting heights, rear view mirror fields of view, non passenger car CAFE' categorization, and the like). You believe that incorporation of the height adjuster feature should not be considered when determining compliance with either the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the vehicle's classification for fuel economy purposes, except for mounting height requirements for lighting equipment designed to be used while the vehicle is stationary (such as parking lamps and hazard warning signal lamps). You ask for our concurrence in this interpretation. Your interpretation is acceptable to us. Provision of the feature described would not invalidate the certification of your company that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor safety standards. We note that the adjustment in height is not automatic, but at the discretion of the vehicle operator. Further, the height adjuster is designed so that if it depresses vehicle height while a vehicle is being operated, it would do so only temporarily, i.e., not more than 15 seconds. Similarly, the height adjuster would not lead to a change in the classification of your vehicle for purposes of the fuel economy standards. Although 49 CFR 523.5 clearly indicates that measurement of angles and clearances for automobiles capable of off-highway operation is to be made when a vehicle is at rest, and your vehicle apparently would not have the requisite angles and clearances when the height adjuster is activated, it would have those angle and clearance when the adjuster is not activated. Further, activation of this feature is discretionary and its effects on the vehicle in motion are, as already noted, very brief. Thus, the vehicle would have the requisite clearance almost all of the time while it is being operated. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1306OpenMr. Jerome Cooper, Green Bus Lines, Inc., 145-25 147th Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11434; Mr. Jerome Cooper Green Bus Lines Inc. 145-25 147th Avenue Jamaica NY 11434; Dear Mr. Cooper: This is in response to your letters of July 30 and August 21, 1973 concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, for materials used in windshields.; We understand and share your concern over the damage and the hazard caused by vandalism toward buses. Standard No. 205 currently prohibits the use of plastics in windshields simply because today's commercial plastics, including the one for which you enclosed a brochure, cannot meet the abrasion resistance test specified in the standard. As long as windshield wipers are used, we are of the opinion that this requirement is essential. We hope that glazing manufacturers will develop materials that will protect against the problems you have described, while at the same time meeting the necessary performance requirements. When such materials are developed, we, or course, would amend the standard as necessary to permit their use.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4104OpenRobert R. Clark, Esq., Tabbert & Capehart, One Indiana Square, Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46204; Robert R. Clark Esq. Tabbert & Capehart One Indiana Square Suite 1500 Indianapolis IN 46204; Dear Mr. Clark: This responds to your letter dated October 21, 1985, inquiring abou the certification responsibilities under federal law of your client, a new car dealer. You stated in your letter that your client plans to convert new automobiles into limousines. These limousines would then be sold wholesale to dealers.; The relevant federal statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*.). Under section 103 of the Act, this agency issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applying to motor vehicles and their equipment.; As we understand the facts stated in your letter, the automobiles wil be completed by the original manufacturer who will certify that they meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your client plans to alter the automobiles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale.; Your client's plan to convert automobiles would make him an alterer subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. An alterer is a person who alters a previously certified vehicle by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid. If the alteration is performed before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the alterer must supplement the certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and containing the firm or individual name of the alterer.; An alterer is also considered a manufacturer for the purposes o notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*.; In addition, please note that your client should take care in makin the conversions not harm the vehicles' safety features. Under section 108 of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design which is installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your client would be subject to this prohibition which applies both before and after the first purchase of a motor vehicle for purposes other than resale.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4411OpenMr. Paul Autery, President, Auto Accessories, Inc., P.O. Box 10044, New Iberia, LA 70561; Mr. Paul Autery President Auto Accessories Inc. P.O. Box 10044 New Iberia LA 70561; Dear Mr. Autery: This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera, of our Office o Vehicle Safety Compliance, concerning the installation of your company's armrest in certain Volvo models. Specifically, you propose to have dealers remove the part of the front seat belt assembly that contains the buckle for the belt, straighten a metal guide that ensures that the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly will remain accessible to passengers, and discard a spacer washer that is provided with the seat belt assembly. The spacer washer would be replaced by the armrest mounting bracket, which you stated is the same thickness as the spacer washer it would replace. You asked us whether this procedure would be permissible under the law and our regulations. As explained below, any dealers that follow your proposed installation might violate Federal law.; Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR S571.208) set forth minimum requirements for occupant protection. Additionally, section S7.2 sets forth an accessibility requirement for safety belt latch mechanisms that reads as follows:; S7.2 *Latch mechanism*. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenge car, except an automatic belt assembly, shall have a latch mechanism --; (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both th stowed and operational positions, ...; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act, as amended (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' This statutory prohibition might be violated by any dealer that followed your proposed installation procedures for your armrest.; For example, it may be that Volvo installed the metal guide on it front seat safety belts for the purpose of complying with section S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If this were the case, any dealer that straightened that metal guide, in accordance with your installation instructions, might render inoperative a device (that metal guide) that was installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 208. In this situation, whether the dealer actually renders inoperative the metal guides by straightening them depends on whether the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly no longer complies with section S7.2 (which requires the buckle to be accessible to the front seat occupant) after the installation.; Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $100 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), up to a maximum of $800,000 for a related series of violations. We would consider each installation of your armrest by a dealer that renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 to be a separate violation. Accordingly, a dealer might be liable for a civil penalty of $1000 multiplied by the number of vehicles in which the dealer had installed armrests in accordance with your instructions.; Please do not misconstrue this letter as suggesting that this agenc either approves or disapproves the proposed installation instructions for your armrests. The Safety Act does not give NHTSA any authority to approve or endorse any products. Instead, the Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether your proposed installation instructions violate a legal or regulatory requirement on your company. The agency may reexamine your initial determination in the context of an enforcement action.; To comply with your legal obligations, I suggest that you carefull reexamine the proposed installation instructions and compare those instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 208, to determine if installing your armrests in accordance with your installation instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 208. If it would do so, you will have to devise some other means of installing your armrests, so that dealers would not be instructed to render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. If your proposed installation instructions do not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208, dealers can follow those instructions without violating any provisions of the law.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1613OpenMr. William P. Stallsmith, Jr., Senior General Attorney, Southern Railway System, P. O. Box 1808, Washington, DC, 20013; Mr. William P. Stallsmith Jr. Senior General Attorney Southern Railway System P. O. Box 1808 Washington DC 20013; Dear Mr. Stallsmith: This responds to your September 24, 1974, question whether Standard No 121, *Air brake systems*, would apply to trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, although the painting of the trailers and their delivery to Southern had not been completed.; Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac of 1966 provides:; >>>(a) No person shall -- (1) manufacture for sale, sell . . . any motor vehicle . . manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard . . .<<<; We consider a vehicle to be 'manufactured' for purposes of the Ac where the vehicle has been completed in all respects except for the addition of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations such as painting undertaken at a later date. A discussion of this point appears in the preamble to a recent Standard No. 121 rulemaking action (39 FR 17564, May 17, 1974). As for possession of the trailers by Southern, delivery of the vehicle is not considered a (sic) element of the manufacturing process.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0901OpenMrs. Katherine C. Little, Edgewood Motorcycle Shop, 1711 Pulaski Highway, Edgewood, MD 21040; Mrs. Katherine C. Little Edgewood Motorcycle Shop 1711 Pulaski Highway Edgewood MD 21040; Dear Mrs. Little: This is in reply to your letters of October 10 and 25, 1972, askin whether motorcycle tires designed exclusively for hill climbing or other off-highway use are required to be registered in accordance with NHTSA Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574).; We do not consider the regulations to require such tires to b registered. The NHTSA has determined that motor vehicle tires designed and manufactured exclusively for off-road use are not subject to the Tire Identification requirements.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4041OpenMr. Hiroshi Moriyoshi, Executive Vice-President and General Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc., Detroit Office, 24402 Sinacola Court, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018; Mr. Hiroshi Moriyoshi Executive Vice-President and General Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. Detroit Office 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills Michigan 48018; Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, *Controls and Displays*, and NO. 102, *Transmissions Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect*. You asked about the identification and visibility requirements of these standards for the gear position indicator of an automatic transmission. As part of a design you are considering producing, a gear position indicator, using light- emitting diodes (LED's), would be located within the instrument panel. Your letter states that this system would conform with all applicable requirements when the ignition switch is in the on and start positions, but would not be visible when the ignition switch was in the accessory or off positions. Your letter states further that, in addition to this LED display, the steering- column-mounted gear shift selector would be provided with embossed position indicators conforming to Standard No. 102, except that the identifiers would only be visible from the inboard side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position. The issues raised by your letter with respect to whether the design you are considering would comply with Standard No. 101 and No. 102 are addressed below.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. the following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 an No. 102 that are relevant to your request. Section S3.2 of Standard No. 102 states that the '(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions . . . shall be *permanently displayed in view of the driver*.' (Emphasis added.); Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.1 requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of section S6. Section S6 provides that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display reference Standard No. 102.; I will now address these requirements in relation to the design you ar considering. As discussed below, it is our opinion that your proposed design would not meet Standard No. 102's requirement that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions must be permanently displayed in view of the driver.; While your design would include two automatic gear position displays *neither* display would provide identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions in view of the driver when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off position. As noted by your letter, NHTSA has interpreted the words 'permanently displayed' to require a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. The display on the instrument panel would not be visible when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off positions. The other display, located on the steering column, would not be visible to the driver regardless of the position of the ignition switch.; NHTSA has previously addressed Standard No. 102's requirement tha certain identification be 'in view of the driver' in connection with a request for interpretation concerning the identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions. The agency concluded that the pattern 'is deemed to be 'displayed in view of the driver' if part of it may be seen from the driver's normal eye position and a reasonable amount of movement of the driver allows him to gain full view of the pattern.' (Letter to Daimler-Benz of North America, February 27, 1967); As noted above, your letter states that the display on the steerin column would 'only be visible from the side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position.' This suggests that little, if any, of the display may be seen from the driver's normal eye position and that a significant amount of movement of the driver would be required to see the full display. This is further confirmed by a statement in your letter indicating that the driver would need to lean forward, utilizing the flexibility provided by an emergency locking retractor, in order to see the display, and then *return* to the normal driving position. (Emphasis added) It therefore appears that the display is not 'in view of the driver.'; While your letter suggest that the degree of visibility provided by th display might be appropriate for situations where the vehicle is not activated, Standard No. 102's requirement that the display be within the ' view of the driver' does not distinguish between whether the engine is on or off. We also note that a driver used to viewing the gear position indicator on the instrument panel might not be aware that another display, which would not be visible from a normal driving position, even exists.; Since neither display would provide identification of shift leve positions of automatic transmissions in view of the driver when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off position, it is unnecessary to address the issue raised by your letter concerning whether multiple and complementary indicator can be used to meet the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 for gear position displays, where no single indicator meets the requirements.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3784OpenMr. William K. Sweeney, Assistant General Counsel, Grumman Corporation, 445 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, NY 11747; Mr. William K. Sweeney Assistant General Counsel Grumman Corporation 445 Broad Hollow Road Melville NY 11747; Dear Mr. Sweeney: This responds to your letter of November 22, 1983, regarding th application of Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) to the new Kubvan minivan you intend to manufacture and distribute. You state in your letter that the Kubvan is a minivan designed primarily for delivery and utility service. You ask whether the Kubvan must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt protection under S4.2.2.2 of the standard.; You state that Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right han drive models of the Kubvan. The right hand drive models are intended for use by the United States Postal Service (USPS). You add that Grumman Olson also plans to sell right hand vehicles to any and all interested customers.; Section 4.2.2.2 requires trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less t provide a lap and shoulder belt protection system, except for those 'vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service.' As correctly stated in your letter, all Kubvans sold to customers other than the USPS must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt assembly. However, based on the intent of S4.2.2.2 and the unique operating needs of the USPS, right hand Kubvans sold to the USPS need only be equipped with a lap belt system.; 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.