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: aiam4869OpenMr. David A. White Manager, Reliability Grumman Olson P.O. Box 2005 Sturgis, MI 49091; Mr. David A. White Manager Reliability Grumman Olson P.O. Box 2005 Sturgis MI 49091; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your 'notification of noncompliance with 49 CFR Part 567 dated March 12, l99l, and addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Grumman has omitted to provide a VIN on the vehicle certification label, as required by section 567.4(g)(6). You have petitioned 'to have the noncompliance deemed inconsequential', and are 'seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires notification and remedy for noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for defects that relate to motor vehicle safety. The requirement that Grumman fails to meet is not contained in Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, but in a regulation that is not part of the Safety Standards (Part 571). Thus, a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not occurred. Furthermore, failure to provide information on the certification label in accordance with Part 567 is not a 'defect'. The Act defines a defect as a 'defect in performance, construction, components or materials.' Clearly this does not exist. In sum, there is no legal obligation upon Grumman Olson to notify and remedy under these circumstances, and the company is free to take whatever action it deems desirable in this case. Failure to comply with Part 567 is a violation of the Safety Act for which a civil penalty may be imposed, but the agency does not intend to seek a penalty in this matter. Nonetheless, we encourage Grumman Olson to take steps necessary to ensure that further violations do not occur. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2544OpenMr. Jeffrey L. Link, Supervisor, Product Safety, Safety and Legislation Department, U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation, 13767 Freeway Drive, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Mr. Jeffrey L. Link Supervisor Product Safety Safety and Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 13767 Freeway Drive Santa Fe Springs CA 90670; Dear Mr. Link: This responds to your February 23, 1977, letter asking whether thre proposed labels satisfy the requirements for label identification found in Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120. A review of the labels you supplied indicates that you have used a different format than illustrated in our notice of February 7, 1977 (42 Federal Register 7140). For example, the amended Standard No. 120 does not require the words 'with the tires listed below' or even the word 'with' before the tire size. The deletion of such superfluous words from the label requirements of Standard No. 120 resulted from comments by manufacturers, particularly motorcycle manufacturers, that unnecessary words needlessly increase the size of the label.; The example of label information shown in S5.3 of the standard i intended only as a guide to manufacturers. A manufacturer can vary the illustrated format somewhat as long as the requirements of S5.3 are satisfied. Since the additional words on your labels do not obfuscate the certification statement, the labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 and Part 567.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5281Open"Herr Dr. Thomas L ckemeyer ITT Automotive Europe Bietigheim-Bissingen Dept. VER/LB"; "Herr Dr. Thomas L ckemeyer ITT Automotive Europe Bietigheim-Bissingen Dept. VER/LB"; "FAX 07142/73-2895 Dear Dr. L ckemeyer: This responds to your FAX o December 10, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked the following questions with respect to the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars: 'Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the FMVSS 108.' Paragraph S5.1.3. of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation as original equipment of additional lamps such as rear fog lamps if the additional lamp 'impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard.' The determination of whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit impairs the effectiveness of other lighting equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the lamp is installed. Unless such a determination is clearly erroneous, this agency will not question it. We do not know whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit is permissible in all the States. Because a fog lamp is not required motor vehicle equipment under Federal law, each State in which it is used may regulate it according to its own laws. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, and suggest that you ask the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its FAX number is 001 703 522 1553, and its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. 'Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?' There are no Federal requirements that apply to rear fog lamps, and, as noted above, we are not conversant with state requirements. For your information, the latest specification of the Society of Automotive Engineers for this item of equipment is SAE Recommended Practice J1319 AUG87 'Fog Tail Lamp (Rear Fog Light) Systems.' 'Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?' No. The certification of the vehicle manufacturer is its representation that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. A State has no authority to question this certification. However, a State is permitted to have a State vehicle lighting standard provided that the State lighting standard is identical to the Federal lighting standard in those areas covered by the Federal lighting standard. Under these circumstances, a State may enforce the State lighting standard even if the vehicle is certified as conforming to the Federal lighting standard. Furthermore, a State may have its own State lighting standard in those areas where there is no Federal lighting standard, such as fog lamps. 'Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S.' AAMVA may be able to provide you with this information as we are unable to. Because State requirements must be identical with respect to the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, State specifications and prohibitions will differ only with respect to supplementary lighting equipment not covered by Standard No. 108 such as cornering lamps and front and rear fog lamps. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0579OpenMr. George Diederich, West Coxsackie, NY 12192; Mr. George Diederich West Coxsackie NY 12192; Dear Mr. Diederich: This is in reply to your letter to Secretary Volpe concerning the Tir Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR 574).; It is unfortunate that you feel the way you do concerning th regulation. However, it does not appear to be an unreasonable burden on the seller of the mobile home to record the name of the purchaser of the mobile home and forward it to the manufacturer.; With regard to the need for the regulation the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) was amended by adding section 113(f) (15 U.S.C. 1402) which requires manufacturers of tires to maintain the names of first purchasers. The amendment also provides that the Secretary may establish procedures for the maintainance (sic) of these records.; The legislative history of section 113(f) clearly indicates that th Congress recognized that in spite of defective tires reaching the marketplace, tire manufacturers had no way of notifying the purchaser of the defective tire and that he could be jeopardizing his life and property, as well as the life and property of the general public, by continuing to use the defective tire.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2114OpenNaoyoshi Suzuki, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 1606, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Naoyoshi Suzuki Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Suzuki: This is in response to your letter of October 15, 1975, in which yo request an interpretation of paragraph S7.1.3 of Standard No. 301, as to whether it is permissible to stop an electric fuel pump prior to the rollover test.; Paragraph S7.1.3 provides that 'If the vehicle has an electricall driven fuel pump that normally runs when the vehicle's electrical system is activated, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash.' The static rollover test specified by S6.4 is not a barrier crash, and therefore is not covered by S7.1.3. In the amendments to Standard No. 301 published on October 15, 1975 (40 FR 48352), the addition of the phrase 'In meeting the requirements of S6.1 through S6.3' to S7.1.3 clarifies the intent of the agency not to require that an electric fuel pump be operating at the time of the rollover test, because the rollover test is required by paragraph S6.4. Therefore, you may turn off the pump if it is still working at the time of the static rollover test.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0129OpenMr. G. Greig, Brixtax(London) Limited, Proctor Works Chertsey Road, Byfleet (Weybridge), Surrey, England; Mr. G. Greig Brixtax(London) Limited Proctor Works Chertsey Road Byfleet (Weybridge) Surrey England; Dear Mr. Greig: This is in reply to your letter of December 9, 1968, in which yo inquire about the certification responsibilities of equipment manufacturers under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; You state that it is your understanding that a vehicle manufacturer ha the responsibility to certify the entire vehicle, including equipment that is produced by other manufacturers and covered by Federal safety standards, as complying with the applicable standards, and that the basis on which that manufacturer satisfies himself that equipment from suppliers conforms to the standards is a matter of his own discretion. I consider that statement to be essentially correct, with the caveat that the manufacturer must be able to show, under S 108(b)(2) of the Act, that 'he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care' that any included equipment was nonconforming. What constitutes 'due care' must be determined in light of all the circumstances of a particular case. You are also correct in your understanding that approval by the States has no relevance to the question of compliance with this Federal law.; Finally regardless of certification requirements all equipment mus conform to applicable standards, and certification by the equipment manufacturer is required if the equipment is ultimately sold in the aftermarket.; I am pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations |
|
ID: aiam1692OpenMr. J. Y. May, President, Atlas Supply Company, 11 Diamond Road, Springfield, NJ 07081; Mr. J. Y. May President Atlas Supply Company 11 Diamond Road Springfield NJ 07081; Dear Mr. May: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 74E-025) involving some H78-15 Cushionaire tires produced by the Kelly-Springfield Tire Company. It was stated that some of these tires fail to meet the high speed test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject tires doe not meet the requirements of Part 577(49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, your letter fails to present information in the form and order specified by Part 577.4. The statements required by Part 577.4(a) and (b) should be quoted exactly and should appear as the first and second sentences respectively of your letter. In this case, where notification is being conducted by the tire brand name owner, the requirements of section 577.4(b)(1) should be met by stating, 'Atlas Supply Company has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle (sic) exists in the H78-15 Atlas Cushionaire Tire.' Moreover, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has taken the position that defect notification letters regarding failures of compliance with applicable safety standards should refer to that noncompliance, and we believe your letter should include, in addition, a statement that the tires fail to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; Your letter also fails to adequately evaluate the risk to traffi safety as required by Part 577.4(d). If vehicle crash is the potential occurrence, the letter must state this. Although many owners will assume that replacement tires are presently available, Part 577.4(e) does require that a firm date for parts availability be given, as well as an estimate of the time necessary to perform labor involved in correcting the defect (replacing the tire(s)).; Your statement, 'chunks of rubber may--at excessive speeds--detach fro the tire carcass and tread,' is, in our opinion, inaccurate, and the reference to excessive speeds should be deleted. The word 'excessive' implies that only drivers who drive at unreasonably high speeds may experience a failure. Since it is required, however, that the owners be informed of precautions that can be taken to reduce the chance of malfunction, an admonition against sustained high speed driving may be appropriate.; It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification lette and send a copy of the revised letter to this office and all owners who have not yet had their tires replaced.; If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. J Reinhart or James Murray at this office at (202) 426-2840. A copy of the Defect Notification regulation is enclosed.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0980OpenMr. Michael J. Long, Minister (Commercial), Embassy of Australia, 1601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Michael J. Long Minister (Commercial) Embassy of Australia 1601 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Long: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1973, concerning acryli headlamp covers.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 incorporates Society o Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J580a, which prohibits the use of acrylic headlamp covers as original equipment. The requirements of SAE Standard J580a have also been incorporated in a number of State regulations, which are applicable to vehicles in use. Copies of Standard No. 108 and SAE Standard J580a are enclosed for your information.; A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Docket 69-19, Notice 3) on Standar No. 108 was issued on October 16, 1972. This Notice includes a provision for optional use of headlamp covers which conform to certain performance requirements. Such requirements are specified in paragraph S7.9 of the Notice (copy enclosed). Acrylic Industries Pty. Ltd. may be interested in commenting on this *proposed* revision of Standard No. 108. The closing date for comments is April 18, 1973.; If you have any questions on the enclosed documents, please do no hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4490OpenMr. Robert W. Hocken General Manager Phoenix Transit System P.O. Box 4275 Phoenix, AZ 85030; Mr. Robert W. Hocken General Manager Phoenix Transit System P.O. Box 4275 Phoenix AZ 85030; Dear Mr. Hocken: This is in reply to your letter of December l6, l98 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have received a 'Service Information Safety Related letter' from Flxible Corporation stating that deceleration warning lights installed on your buses do not comply with Standard No. 108. You have also asked how you may file for 'Special Exception' if your buses are not in compliance. This will confirm that Flxible Corporation, pursuant to applicable Federal regulations, has determined that certain buses produced by it, including the 67 units furnished Phoenix, do not comply with Standard No. 108, and has initiated a notification and remedy campaign (Campaign 87V-089). The basis of this determination was the manufacturer's conclusion that flashing amber deceleration warning lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stop lamps. The company has advised you of the corrective action to be taken, that is, to remove the deceleration flasher. Although the agency encourages owners of campaigned vehicles to remedy noncompliances, the decision whether to do so rests with the vehicle owner. There is no Federal requirement that an owner correct a noncompliance that exists in his vehicle, and no penalty for his failure to do so. Thus, no 'Special Exception' is either needed or available for an owner who wishes to continue operating a vehicle in a noncompliant state. We are interested in your comment that you experienced a 44 percent reduction in accidents in l985, the first full year that the system was installed on all your buses, compared with l984. This report compares favorably with the accident reduction experienced in our test fleets of passenger cars equipped with center highmounted stop lamps, which was the basis for eventual adoption of that requirement. The agency is engaged in research pertaining to the conspicuity of large vehicles, and would find it helpful to have a copy of the data upon which you based your comment. It should be sent to Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Research and Development, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. We appreciate your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1368OpenMr. David C. Keehn, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580; Mr. David C. Keehn Attorney Division of Marketing Practices Bureau of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission Washington DC 20580; Dear Mr. Keehn: Thank you for bringing the Ryder Rental odometer problem to ou attention.; The odometer provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cos Savings Act apply only to tampering that leads to the under-representation of mileage. We recommend that over-representation cases be referred to the State consumer protection office. In this case, of course, Mr. Sharkey registered his complaint there in the first instance.; Yours truly, 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.