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: aiam4387OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Assoc., 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Assoc. 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: With reference to your phone conversation with Make Peskoe on Septembe 8, I have enclosed a copy of an NHTSA opinion which concludes that a person adding a snow plow to a completed vehicle is not required to certify the vehicle. In such a case, the existing certification label should be left in place. You should note that the opinion also states that if the mounting of the snow plow causes the vehicle not to conform to any applicable motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle is not brought back into conformity before sale, the person mounting the plow will be violating section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety act, and will be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions as prescribed in sections 109 and 110 of the Act.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1185OpenMr. Glen Tillotson, R. R. #2, Cokaton, MN 55321; Mr. Glen Tillotson R. R. #2 Cokaton MN 55321; Dear Mr. Tillotson: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1973, concerning problem that you foresee for your company under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. The primary problem you describe is the need to test brakes on vehicles that you produce in very small quantities.; The standards promulgated by this agency under the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act do not impose a mandatory level of testing on regulated manufacturers. If we purchase a manufacturer's product, test it, and find that it fails an applicable standard, to avoid liability for noncompliance, the manufacturer must then establish that he exercised due care in assuring himself that the product conformed to the standard. The most common method by which manufacturers assess their product's conformity with a standard is by testing the products in accordance with the procedures of the standard. A manufacturer may, however, contract to have this testing done by an outside laboratory, may rely on adequate information provided him by a supplier, or use other reasonable means to make sure that his products comply.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4112OpenMr. Marshall D. Carter, Whisper Electric Car AS, 87 Hadsundve, Als, DK-9560 Hadsund, Denmark; Mr. Marshall D. Carter Whisper Electric Car AS 87 Hadsundve Als DK-9560 Hadsund Denmark; Dear Mr. Carter: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking tw questions with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; With respect to electric vehicles, you have asked 'is there a standar regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?' There is no such standard. The vehicle must be equipped with a hazard warning signal operating unit designed to conform to SAE J910, January 1966, and a hazard warning signal flasher designed to conform to SAE J945, February 1966, but there is no requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, that the hazard warning signal flashers perform for a minimum specified period of time in service.; You have also asked 'Is there a requirement that the vehicle b equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection?' We are unable to confirm your conclusion that there is no such requirement under Standard No. 101. Paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions or patterns be permanently displayed in front of the driver. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 requires illumination of the 'gauges' listed in Column 1 of Table 2 that are accompanied by the word 'Yes' in Column 5. The last 'gauge' listed is 'Automatic gear position', and the word 'Yes' appears in Column 5. The automatic gear position is a 'gauge' as defined by paragraph S4 of Standard No. 101, 'a display that is listed in ...Table 2 and is not a telltale'. Thus the Federal standards do require illumination of the gear positions of automatic transmissions, but not of manual ones.; I hope that this responds to your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1310OpenMr. J.R. Farron,Group Director of Engineering,The Bendix Corporation,Automotive Control,Systems Group,401 Bendix Drive, South Bend, Indiana 46620; Mr. J.R. Farron Group Director of Engineering The Bendix Corporation Automotive Control Systems Group 401 Bendix Drive South Bend Indiana 46620; Dear Mr. Farron:#This replies to your letter of October 17, 1973.#W have studied the comment contained in your letter carefully, and based on your extensive experience, have no reason to believe that your use of tubing made of solid neoprene rubber for the application in question constitutes a safety hazard.#Since there is a limited movement involved, the use of 'tubing' rather than 'hose' is appropriate. The Bureau has not, as yet, established standards other than the general requirements of paragraph 393.43(a) for brake tubing used in applications which do not flex. Use of coiled nylon brake tubing for connections between the requirements for Type 3b nylon tubing set forth in SAE Standard J844.C.#We appreciate your interest in this safety matter and trust the above is responsive to your inquiry.#Sincerely yours,W.R. Fiste, Chief,Regulations Division; |
|
ID: aiam2456OpenMr. Keigo Ohgiya, The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc., 9th Floor, Toranomon Building, No. 15, Shiba Toranomon, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. Keigo Ohgiya The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association Inc. 9th Floor Toranomon Building No. 15 Shiba Toranomon Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Ohgiya: This responds to your April 22, 1976, letter advising the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the tire standards of the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association (JATMA) are being translated into English. You request that consideration be given to referencing JATMA standards in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that regulate motor vehicle tire manufacture. I regret that we have not responded to your letter sooner.; Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires*, and Standard No. 119, *Ne Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, presently reference the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS). Because the JATMA standards appear to be updated mote often than the JIS standards, and because the JATMA standards will be issued in English, the agency intends to substitute a reference to JATMA standards in its regulations for the existing reference to JIS standards.; Thank you for providing us with the English translation of th motorcycle tire standards. We request that you provide us copies of all English translations of the standards for all vehicle types as often as the are updated.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5393OpenErika Z. Jones, Esq. Mayer, Brown & Platt 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-1882; Erika Z. Jones Esq. Mayer Brown & Platt 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20006-1882; "Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your letter asking for ou concurrence that 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts a 'California flammability standard' as that standard applies to child restraint systems. The standard you enclosed is California Business and Professions Code, Division 8, Chapter 3, 19006 and 19161. I apologize for the delay in this response. Because it was not readily apparent from your letter that the California flammability standard applies to child restraint systems, Ms. Fujita of my staff contacted California state officials for more information about the standard. We were informed by Mr. Art Anderson, Chief of the California Highway Safety Office, that California does not have a flammability standard for child restraint systems. Mr. Anderson was aware that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302 applies to child restraints by way of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems.' As you point out, Federal preemption issues would arise if California had a flammability standard for child restraint systems that covered the same aspect of performance as FMVSSs 213 and 302. However, in view of Mr. Anderson's statement that California has no flammability standard for child restraint systems, we need not address those issues today. We hope this information is helpful. Mr. Anderson of the California Highway Safety Office (telephone (916) 445-0527) said he will be happy to answer any questions you might have about California's requirements. If you any further questions about 103(d), please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Art Anderson"; |
|
ID: aiam4428OpenMr. Dave Anderson Sales Manager Gist Ornamental Iron Works, Inc. l2l27 Woodside Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040; Mr. Dave Anderson Sales Manager Gist Ornamental Iron Works Inc. l2l27 Woodside Avenue Lakeside CA 92040; Dear Mr. Anderson: This responds to your letter about Federa requirements for trailers. According to your letter, you are in the planning stages of becoming a manufacturer of, and dealer for, automobile trailers. The trailers would hitch to the back of automobiles and be designed to carry cargo. You noted that in response to an earlier inquiry, you received a copy of the handout entitled 'Information For New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' You stated that you are unclear just how this applies to automobile trailers. You asked what you need to do to comply with any applicable Federal regulations, and what regulations apply to trailers of the kind you plan to build. Trailers are considered motor vehicles under Federal law. As a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. The procedure is specified in 49 CFR Part 567. The following safety standards apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, Safety Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, Safety Standard No. l20, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, trailers with certain braking systems must meet Safety Standard No. l06, Brake Hoses, Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and Safety Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems. All of these safety standards are found in 49 CFR Part 57l. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3617OpenMr. J. L. Campbell, Jr., 12813 95th Avenue, N.E., Kirkland, WA 98033; Mr. J. L. Campbell Jr. 12813 95th Avenue N.E. Kirkland WA 98033; Dear Mr. Campbell: I have recently received a copy of your letter to Senator Gorto concerning the difficulties small manufacturers of motor vehicles have in complying with Federal standards. To alleviate these difficulties, you suggested that blanket exemptions from the bumper regulations and the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on side door strength be granted to all 4-wheel vehicles under 800 pounds dry weight.; As explained more fully below, this agency does not have authority fro Congress to grant an exemption from the bumper standard for the ultra-lightweight vehicles you describe. Such authority would require new legislation. However, we do have authority either to exclude all of those vehicles from the side door strength standard or to exempt particular manufacturers of those vehicles from that standard.; Congress set forth the guidelines under which this agency could issu exemptions from the bumper standards in section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1912(c)(1). Exemptions may be granted only to passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. While neither the Cost Savings Act nor this agency has defined 'special use', the Cost Savings Act is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: (1) the vehicle is manufactured for a special use, (2) compliance with the bumper standard would unreasonably interfere with that use. The example Congress cited for such a vehicle was a Jeep with snow removal equipment on the front. The agency believes that the purpose of an ultra-lightweight passenger vehicle is essentially the same as that of a lightweight vwehicle such as the Toyota Starlet, Honda Civic or Ford Escort, i.e., to carry passengers. The agency does not view that purpose to be a special use within the meaning of section 102. Further, even if the first condition could be met, it is not clear that the second one could be. Hence, an amendment to the Cost Savings Act would have to be made by the Congress before we could grant an exemption from the bumper standard to your ultra-lightweight passenger motor vehicles.; Concerning your request regarding Standard No. 214, side door strength NHTSA formerly excepted motor vehicles (other than trailers and motorcycles) of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight from all safety standards. However, that exception was eliminated in 1973 (38 F.R. 12808, May 16, 1973). At that time, the agency stated that manufacturers seeking relief from compliance problems peculiar to these vehicles could either petition for amendments to individual standards or petition for an exemption under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).; These options remain the ones available to manufacturers o ultra-lightweight vehicles. Thus, one option is to submit a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting the agency to amend Standard No. 214 to exclude those vehicles from that standard's applicability provision. I should point out that few, if any, petitions of this type have been submitted since the agency's May 1973 notice and none have been granted. Also, you should be aware that the rulemaking process is often a lengthy one.; The other option is for a manufacturer to submit a petition for th exemption of his vehicles from a particular standard. I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets forth the information that a manufacturer must include in its petition. Exemption petitions are not uncommon and are often granted at least in part. Also, because fewer procedural steps are necessary, the exemption process is typically much faster than the amendment process. Should you wish to submit an exemption petition, you may find useful the enclosed copies of section 123 of the Safety Act and Standard No. 214, *Side Door Strength* (49 CFR S 571.214).; If you need any further assistance or information on either of thes subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me. We try to minimize the regulatory difficulties experienced by small manufacturers to the extent we can do so consistent with our legislative authority.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2905OpenMr. F. Michael Petler, Assistant Manager, Safety & Legislation Department, U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation, P.O. Box 2107, Santa Fe Springs, California 90670; Mr. F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation P.O. Box 2107 Santa Fe Springs California 90670; Dear Mr. Petler: This is in response to your letter of August 11, 1978, requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers.; Standard 127 does not specify that the number '0' appear on the face o the speedometer. It is permissible for you to reletter the '0' mph position to read '5' mph, as the lowest measured speed indicated. This would solve the problem you indicate regarding the relationship of the graduation distance between the 0 and 10 mph to that between 10 and 20, 20 and 30, etc.; The NHTSA has received petitions for reconsideration requesting tha the 10 percent deviation requirement be eliminated. A determination will be made at a later date whether to grant the petitions.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0938OpenMr. Bernard P. O'Meara, Center for Auto Safety, 800 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20004; Mr. Bernard P. O'Meara Center for Auto Safety 800 National Press Building Washington DC 20004; Dear Mr. O'Meara: Thank you for your letter of 29 November, 1972, concerning allege non-compliance of the Defect Information Report regarding Volkswagen Windshield Wipers, submitted by Volkswagen of America on October 12, 1972, with the requirements of NHTSA's Defect Reports Regulations, 49 CFR Part 573. We agree that Volkswagen has failed to supply information required by Sections 573.4(c)(2) and 573.4(c)(6) of the Regulation, specifically, the months of manufacture of the affected vehicles and a chronology which includes warranty claims, field service bulletins, and other such information. We are contacting Volkswagen to determine why the Company has failed to furnish that information and to attempt to obtain it. We also agree with your conclusion that 100% of 1948-1969 Volkswagens are potentially affected by the windshield wiper defect. However, Volkswagen's statement that 'no information is available' as to either the total number of such vehicles operating in the United States, or the percentage potentially affected satisfies the disclosure requirement of the regulation (49 CFR 573.4(c)(3, 4)).; We cannot agree, however, with your remaining assertions o non-compliance with the Regulations. While the Volkswagen Information Report is lacking in detail and is a poor example of an informational communication, it does contain minimal responses to the enumerated requirements of the Regulations.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.