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: aiam3656OpenMr. A. Forbes Crawford, No. 10 - 905 Chilco Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6G 2R3; Mr. A. Forbes Crawford No. 10 - 905 Chilco Street Vancouver British Columbia Canada V6G 2R3; Dear Mr. Crawford: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1983, to Secretary Lewi recommending that he make an 'administrative decision' that would exempt foreign manufacturers from compliance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations for vehicles conforming to standards of their country of origin, and which are produced in quantities 'up to 50,000 per year with engines not exceeding 65 cu. in. or 1100cc (sic).'; The Department does not have the legal authority to issue a directiv of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless temporarily exempted. No permanent exemption is authorized for any type of vehicle, and no discretionary power is provided for this purpose. Authority of a nature responsive to your request could be provided only by a Congressional amendment to the Act.; As a former principal of Jet Industries which was the beneficiary o one of the NHTSA temporary exemptions (No. 76-1) and an extension of it, you are aware that a mechanism exists by which you may participate in the American market in a manner that takes into account both your economic realities and our safety concerns.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4193OpenMr. Binichi Doi, NSK Representative Office, P.O. Box 1507, Ann Arbor, MI 48106; Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office P.O. Box 1507 Ann Arbor MI 48106; Dear Mr. Doi: Thank you for your letters concerning the automatic safety belt warnin requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You explained in your letters and in conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff that NSK-Warner is developing a motorized automatic belt system that would be equipped with an emergency release buckle. You also plan to provide voluntarily a manual lap belt with the system. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.; You first asked whether you can use an automatic belt warning syste for your motorized belt system which would activate an audible signal under the following conditions: (1) the vehicle ignition is moved to the 'on' or 'start' position, (2) the motorized automatic belt is not fastened and (3) the motorized belt has not reached its locked protective position. As explained below, such a system is permissible, but is not required by the standard.; S4.5.3 of the standard sets forth the requirement for automatic bel systems. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a motorized automatic belt system to have a warning system that sounds an audible signal for between 4 and 8 seconds if the automatic belt latchplate is not fastened or the emergency release is activated and the ignition is in the 'on' or 'start' position. However, S4.5.3.3(b) does not require the audible signal to be activated until a motorized belt has reached its locked protective mode. Your system would activate the audible signal while the motorized belt is moving to its locked position and it would sound again once it has reached its locked position. Thus, NSK is voluntarily providing a warning that is not required by the standard. As stated in the preamble to the November 6, 1985 notice (50 FR 46063) adopting the new warning system requirements for automatic safety belts, a manufacturer is free to provide additional features as long as the features required by the standard still continue to comply with all the applicable performance requirements. Thus, as long as the warning system provides the warning required by S4.5.3.3(b), NSK may voluntarily provide additional warnings as well.; You also said that NSK is planning to provide an automatic belt warnin system for both the driver's and right front passenger's seating position. S4.5.3.3(b) requires an automatic belt warning system only at the left front designated seating position. Thus, the agency would consider the passenger side warning system as a voluntary system, which you may install as long as the driver's warning system will continue to meet all applicable requirements.; You also asked several questions about when and how long the audibl and light warning are to be activated. Specifically you asked whether the warnings must be reactivated when the tongue of an emergency release buckle (referred to as an ERB in your letter) is inserted into the latch mechanism and then removed again within a few seconds. You also asked if the warnings can be de-activated by insertion of the tongue of the emergency release buckle before expiration of the 4-8 seconds specification for the audible warning and the 60 second specification for activation of the warning light. As explained below, if the emergency release buckle has been fastened and then unfastened after a few seconds, the warning does not have to be re-activated until after the ignition switch has been turned 'off' and then turned again to the 'on' or 'start' position. Also if the warning begins to activate and then the emergency release buckle is fastened, the warning may immediately be cancelled and thus does not have to be activated for the full time period specified in the standard.; S4.5.3.3(b) provides that the audible warning and the warning light ar to be activated only under certain conditions. Thus, the standard provides that the warnings are to be activated when condition A (the ignition switch is in the 'on' or 'start' position) *exists simultaneously* with one of the other conditions, such as condition B (the emergency release buckle not being fastened). Thus, if the emergency release buckle is unfastened and, at the same time, the ignition is in the 'on' or 'start' position, the warnings must activate. However, if the ignition is not in the 'on' or 'start' position and the emergency buckle is released, then the warnings do not have to be activated. The agency has previously said, such as in a June 17, 1981, letter to Chrysler, that the warning is not to activate if the safety belt is buckled. Thus, the warning may be cancelled once the emergency release buckle is fastened.; Again, I regret the delay in our response. If you have any furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4039OpenMr. William R. Fink, President, Isis Imports, Ltd., P.O. Box 2290, U.S. Custom House, San Francisco, CA 94126; Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 U.S. Custom House San Francisco CA 94126; Dear Mr. Fink: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1985, to the forme Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt. Your company, Isis Imports, is an importer of Morgan passenger cars, and has heretofore imported them pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iii). Upon advice of your attorney you have concluded that you may instead import them pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix), and wish to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of that fact.; More specifically, under 12.80(b)(1)(iii) an importer declares that hi vehicles was not manufactured in conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but that it has been, or will be, brought into conformity, he also is required to furnish a bond for the production of a conformity statement. Under 12.80(b)(1)(ix), the importer simply declares that the vehicle is an 'incomplete vehicle' as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, no bond is required as it is assumed that the vehicle will be completed to conform to the Federal safety standards and bear the certification of its final- stage manufacturer. Because the Morgans are received from Morgan Motor Company without 'major components of the fuel system: no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc.,' you believe that they are 'incomplete vehicles,' which are defined by S568.3 as 'an assemblage consisting as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations...to become a completed vehicle.'; We disagree with your conclusion. The rulemaking history of Part 56 clearly shows that the intent of the regulation is to cover vehicles whose manufacture has customarily been shared. As the agency commented in 1970, 'A large number of heavy vehicles of all types, of recreational vehicles, and of special purpose vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages, of which the first is an incomplete vehicle such as a stripped chassis, chassis cowl, or chassis cab to which one or more subsequent manufacturers add components to produce a completed vehicle.' (35 FR 4639) The Morgan, on the other hand, is a passenger car ordinarily manufactured in a single stage, and in this instance is nonetheless virtually complete when it arrives in the United States. It is therefore a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), and the agency will not accept any HS-7 forms evidencing attempts to enter the vehicles pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix).; I enclose copies of a couple of rulemaking proposals on Part 568 s that you might have a better understanding of its thrust. Were we to accept your interpretation, S568.4(a) would require Morgan Motor Company to furnish a document with each vehicle advising Isis how compliance with each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard might be affected by its final manufactured operations. Given the decision of Peter Morgan over the years not to conform his vehicles for the American market, we question whether he would furnish a document attesting that his product complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except 301, *Fuel System Integrity*.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3206OpenMr. Y. Matsumoto, Vice President, N.S. International, Ltd., 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Rm. 2540, Los Angeles, California 90036; Mr. Y. Matsumoto Vice President N.S. International Ltd. 5670 Wilshire Boulevard Rm. 2540 Los Angeles California 90036; Dear Mr. Matsumoto: Please accept my apologies for our delay in responding to your inquire of January 14, 1980 and November 30, 1979. Your letters concerned the potential compliance of your company's odometers with the proposed amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*, and were accompanied by 4 speedometer/odometer assemblies for use on motorcycles.; The agency is now preparing to issue the final rule concerning th March 22, 1979 notice of proposed rulemaking, but due to Federal law and Department policy we cannot discuss its contents with your at this time. I believe that the final rule which will be published in the near future, will be responsive to your questions. We would be happy to send you a copy as soon as it is published. If after reading it, you have further questions please let me know. Please note that we are returning your speedometer/odometer assemblies under separate cover.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5501OpenMr. Ken Daining Supervisor, Vehicle Test and Development ITT Automotive 3000 University Drive Auburn Hills, MI 48326; Mr. Ken Daining Supervisor Vehicle Test and Development ITT Automotive 3000 University Drive Auburn Hills MI 48326; Dear Mr. Daining: This responds to your letter about Federa requirements applicable to an 'on/off switch' for antilock brake systems (ABS). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that Chrysler Jeep owners disengage their ABS in response to the 'perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations.' You mentioned the possibility of designing a vehicle's gear system so that the ABS function is automatically disengaged when the vehicle is shifted into the four wheel drive-LO configuration. As explained below, while both manual and automatic ABS on/off switches are permitted under the current requirements, neither is required. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, which specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems. This Standard does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting ABS. Likewise, it does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting either a manual or automatic ABS on/off switch. Accordingly, either type of switch is permitted under the standard, provided the vehicle complies with the standard both when the device is 'on' and when the device is 'off.' FMVSS No. 105 will continue to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), notwithstanding the agency's recent adoption of FMVSS No. 135 Hydraulic Brake Systems, Passenger Car Brake Systems, which applies only to passenger car brake systems (60 FR 6411, February 2, 1995). Even though FMVSS No. 135 does not apply to MPVs, you should be aware that FMVSS No. 135 prohibits passenger cars from being equipped with ABS disabling switches. The agency stated in a July 1991 notice that 'such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial.' Please note that this prohibition does not become immediately effective, even for passenger cars, since manufacturers can continue to certify compliance to FMVSS No. 105 for five years after FMVSS No. 135 takes effect. If an automatic or manual ABS on/off switch were installed in a used vehicle, such a device must not 'make inoperative' the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business from installing such a device if the installation 'makes inoperative' compliance with any safety standard. For instance, if a vehicle could only comply with the stopping distance or other service brake requirements in Standard No. 105 when the ABS is activated, then installation of the switch would serve to make inoperative compliance with the safety standard. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0703OpenMr. William V. Reynolds, National Association of School Bus Contract Operators, P.O. Box 324, 4616 Lawn Court, Fairfax, VA 22030; Mr. William V. Reynolds National Association of School Bus Contract Operators P.O. Box 324 4616 Lawn Court Fairfax VA 22030; Dear Mr. Reynolds: This is in reply to your letter of April 21, 1972, concerning problem some school bus manufacturers are having completing school buses manufactured with chassis ordered before January 1, 1972. You request our opinion as to whether these buses can be delivered even though they exceed by 350 pounds the GAWR specified for the rear axle of the chassis.; One purpose of the Certification requirements and the requirement regarding 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages,' which went into effect January 1, 1972, and which require manufacturers to specify GAWR and GVWR, was to prevent the construction of motor vehicles of insufficient capability to carry anticipated loads. In our view, a manufacturer who completes a vehicle whose loaded weight or axle loads are in excess of its weight ratings is manufacturing a potentially unsafe vehicle which could be subject to the defect notification provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The regulations apply to motor vehicles completed after January 1, 1972, and will apply to the school buses in question.; We do not consider the notice of December 28, 1971, to allow thes manufacturers to omit GAWR and GVWR from their certification labels. That notice allows this to be done only when a final-stage manufacturer, using a chassis manufactured before January 1, 1972, does not have and cannot obtain the gross axle and vehicle weight ratings for particular vehicles. These ratings have evidently been furnished to the school bus manufacturers who are the subject of your letter, and as a consequence they are responsible for placing these values on the labels of the completed vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1811OpenMr. Albert L. Luce, President, Blue Bird Body Company, North Macon Street, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Albert L. Luce President Blue Bird Body Company North Macon Street Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Luce: Thank you for your response dated December 5, 1974, to ou certification information request (CIR 1177) letter dated November 4, 1974, pertaining to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release,' failure.; The failure pertained to the bus not meeting the window retentio requirements (Section S5.1) when it was subjected to a compliance test conducted by a laboratory under contract to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; Due to the disparity that exists between Blue Bird Body Company's tes results and those of the NHTSA, it is requested that the appropriate Blue Bird personnel participate in an informal technical meeting with NHTSA personnel on March 25, 1975. This meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. in Room 3222, Trans Point Building,2100 Second Street, S.W.,Washington, D.C.; The following additional information will be required: 1. The number of buses modified to date as a result of the defec notification.; 2. Copy of the detail drawings or sketches and procedures to follow t accomplish the defect notification rework.; 3. Sample copy of the letters sent to the purchasers and th distributors or field representatives as a result of the defect notification.; 4. Specify at what point, in the buildup of the bus body, is the windo opening checked.; 5. The date when the bus body, Serial No. F25048, was assembled. 6. The date when the redesigned rubber extrusion was incorporated. Please advise by Monday, March 17, 1975, the names and titles of you representatives who will attend and whether the meeting date is satisfactory.; Should there be any questions concerning this letter, please refer the to Mr. Alfred Kazmierczak, a member of my staff, on telephone number 202-426-0826.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5151OpenMr. Patrick P. Radice Director of Operations Electronics Division Tridon 101 Evergreen Drive Springfield, TN 37172; Mr. Patrick P. Radice Director of Operations Electronics Division Tridon 101 Evergreen Drive Springfield TN 37172; "Dear Mr. Radice: We have received your undated letter with respect t certification of aftermarket flashers. You understand that manufacturers of aftermarket turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers must certify that the flashers comply with the applicable requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prior to sale. However, when a vehicle is equipped with a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher, you ask whether the manufacturer of the replacement flasher must certify compliance with requirements for both flashers, or can certify the flasher to 'meet either the turn signal flasher or hazard warning signal flasher of FMVSS-108 but not both?' Paragraph S5.8.1 (formerly S5.7.1) of Standard No. 108 requires that each item of lighting equipment manufactured to replace any item of lighting equipment on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. Therefore, a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher that is manufactured to replace a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher must be designed to conform to requirements applicable to both turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers. Paragraph S5.8.2 permits replacement lighting equipment to be labelled with the symbol DOT, constituting a certification of compliance to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (although the manufacturer may certify by a label or tag affixed to the flasher or the container in which it is shipped). The 'applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards' for a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher are those portions of Standard No. 108 that specify requirements for turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers. The manufacturer's certification must therefore cover both. I hope this explains the matter for you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2694OpenMr. Charles W. Jarvis, Secretary, Ford Garage Company, Inc., 109 Warren Street, Glens Falls, NY 12801; Mr. Charles W. Jarvis Secretary Ford Garage Company Inc. 109 Warren Street Glens Falls NY 12801; Dear Mr. Jarvis: This responds to your September 27, 1977, letter asking whether a 1 passenger vehicle designed to transport children to and from a Y.M.C.A. recreation facility would be required to comply with the new Federal school bus safety standards.; The Federal school bus safety standards promulgated under the Moto Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 92-492) apply to motor vehicles transporting 10 or more passengers to and from school or related events. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has tentatively concluded that facilities such as Y.M.C.A.s may not have been aware that school bus safety standards might be applicable to vehicles manufactured to transport children to and from these facilities. Accordingly, the agency has temporarily exempted from the requirements buses designed for use by such facilities.; You should note that the NHTSA plans to commence rulemaking that migh require buses used for activities such as those described to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. The extended application of the standards would only affect buses manufactured after the effective date of the rulemaking action.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3986OpenMr. William Pesce, 8 P Origionals, 2892 Crownview Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274; Mr. William Pesce 8 P Origionals 2892 Crownview Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90274; Dear Mr. Pesce: Thank you for your May 18, 1985 letter inquiring about the existence o any Federal safety requirements applicable to your projected sale of colored windshield wiper blades.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agenc has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*, applicable to new motor vehicles. While this standard does not regulate wiper color, it does, among other things, require that a wiping system clear a minimum percentage of a vehicle's windshield.; In addition, Standard No. 107, *Reflecting Surfaces*, also applies t new motor vehicles. This standard specifies reflecting surface requirements for certain components, including windshield wiper blades, in the driver's field of view. Its purpose is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces will hinder safe and normal operation of the vehicle.; If a new vehicle equipped with your blade did not comply with Standar No. 104 or Standard No 107 due to some aspect of that blade, the sale of that car to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.; As to used vehicles, you should be aware that section 108()(2)(A) o the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle under Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Care should be taken that the installation of your product would not have that effect. A rendering inoperative might occur if, for example, your blade were not large enough to enable the wiping system to clear a sufficient area of the windshield. We urge you therefore to ensure that the substitution of your blade for an original equipment blade provided by a vehicle manufacturer would enable the wiping system to continue to perform as required by Standard No. 104, and would not produce unacceptable glare in the drivers field of view, as required by Standard No. 107.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, 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.