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: aiam3457OpenMr. Dennis E. Sekermestrovich, Sales Manager, Composite Cylinder Division, Luxfer USA Limited, P.O. Box 5300, Riverside, CA 92507; Mr. Dennis E. Sekermestrovich Sales Manager Composite Cylinder Division Luxfer USA Limited P.O. Box 5300 Riverside CA 92507; Dear Mr. Sekermestrovich: This responds to your letter of July 2, 1981, seeking confirmation tha DOT approval is not required for compressed gas tanks that are to be used as part of an automobile fuel system.; Your determination that DOT approval is not required is correct. Th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. However, the agency does not pass approval on any vehicle or piece of equipment prior to its introduction in the market place. It is up to the manufacturer to certify, on the basis of due care, that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) o the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' Emphasis added. The agency's enforcement program is based on compliance testing of vehicles or equipment that have already been certified by the manufacturer.; We are enclosing for your information a discussion which sets forth th implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas, as well as a general discussion of auxiliary fuel tanks. From that discussion, you will see that there are no safety standards directly applicable to propane fuel tanks as pieces of automobile equipment. There are, however, specifications under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations relating to propane fuel systems on commercial vehicles or to tanks used for shipment of propane gas in interstate commerce. If your tanks will be used on other than private vehicles, these regulations may be of interest to you. For further information, you may contact Mr. W. R. Fiste of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (202-426-0033).; We have also enclosed, at your request, copies of Safety Standard No 301, *Fuel System Integrity*, and 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4392OpenMs. Sally P. Tate, Adaptive Driving Service, 2818 Ronco Drive, San Jose, CA 95132; Ms. Sally P. Tate Adaptive Driving Service 2818 Ronco Drive San Jose CA 95132; Dear Ms. Tate: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1987, with reference t the following problem: an owner of a 1987 Toyota Corolla has multiple sclerosis, and instead of walking must use a powered scooter. The scooter is transported by a lift platform mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. However, this lift unit 'obstructs direct view of the factory installed high rear brake light.' You propose to install another stop lamp on the post of the lift 'so that it will be in direct view of the drivers behind....,' leaving untouched the original center highmounted stop lamp. You have informed us that California will not sanction the additional lamp unless this agency authorizes it.; Vehicles in use are subject to the prohibition in the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard may not be rendered inoperative, in whole or in part, by a person other than the vehicle owner. Installation of any equipment that obstructs the light output of a highmounted stop lamp would render it partially inoperative in our opinion. Because photometric compliance of the lamp is determined from a distance of not less than 10 feet, and because the distance between the Toyota rear lamp and lift unit would appear to be less than that distance, it is probable that one or more of the requisite photometric test points might be obscured by the device.; However, it appears that the prohibition against rendering inoperativ may not be violated by the modification you propose. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* allows an exception for modifications made during the manufacturing process or before sale. Under Paragraph S4.3.1.1, if motor vehicle equipment prevents a lamp from compliance with photometric requirements, an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements shall be provided. Where a standard provides alternative methods of compliance, alteration of a vehicle or item of equipment so that it meets a different alternative from the one which it originally met does not constitute rendering inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. We believe that your situation is sufficiently similar so that your addition of an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements would not violate the prohibition. In this instance the fact that the new lamp would not be located directly on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle, but slightly to the left of it, would not be of great concern to us. In conclusion, we have no objection to the proposed installation of the lamp.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4238OpenMr. Adam Humes, General Manager, Marquis Coachcrafters, 7701 Alabama Avenue, Canoga Park, CA 91304; Mr. Adam Humes General Manager Marquis Coachcrafters 7701 Alabama Avenue Canoga Park CA 91304; Dear Mr. Humes: Thank you for your letter to Stephen Oesch of my office concerning th effect of our regulations on the conversion of hardtop vehicles into convertibles. You explained that your company will be performing such conversions on new Cadillac Sedan De Villes and you are specifically concerned about how Standards No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, would affect such conversions. I regret the delay in our response.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, eac manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under Part 567.7 of the agency's certification regulation, a copy of which is enclosed, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable standards. Thus, your company would have to certify that the vehicle you have altered into a convertible still complies with all applicable standards.; In the case of Standard No. 208, S4.1.2.3.2 of the standard permit convertibles to have either a lap or lap/shoulder belt at each front outboard designated seating position. Thus, when you alter a hardtop passenger car, you may remove the lap/shoulder belt and replace it with a lap belt that meets the requirements of S4.1.2.3.2.; Please note that beginning on September 1, 1986, manufacturers mus begin phasing-in the installation of automatic restraint systems, such as automatic belts and airbag systems, in their vehicles. For example, S4.1.3.1 of Standard No. 208 requires manufacturers to install automatic restraints in ten percent of their passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987. The agency has temporarily excluded convertibles from the automatic restraint requirement during the phase-in period. Instead of automatic restraints, convertibles may have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt.; Please note that the agency's final decision in the ongoing rulemakin on applying the automatic restraint requirement to convertibles may affect the conversion of hard-top cars into convertibles in subsequent years. If the agency does not exempt convertibles permanently from the automatic restraint requirement, then a person changing an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to ensure that the altered cars still complied with the automatic restraint requirement. Likewise, if the agency applied a dynamic test requirement to the manual safety belts used in convertibles, a person altering an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to either retain the automatic restraints or equip the altered vehicles with manual safety belts meeting the dynamic test requirements.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3007OpenMr. Marvin Manes, Oestreicher, Sternberg & Manes, Suite 402, Wolf Ledges Professional Bldg., 411 Wolf Ledges Parkway, Akron, OH 44311; Mr. Marvin Manes Oestreicher Sternberg & Manes Suite 402 Wolf Ledges Professional Bldg. 411 Wolf Ledges Parkway Akron OH 44311; Dear Mr. Manes: This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1979, asking whethe your client, a tire brand name owner, is permitted to bill its dealers and distributors directly for the costs of supplying Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104 and maintaining records of tire sales pursuant to 49 CFR 574.7.; The UTQG regulation requires that tire manufacturers and brand nam owners 'provide' grading information for each of their tires (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)). Similarly, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation requires these parties to 'provide' upon request tire registration forms to dealers and distributors (49 CFR 575.7(a)) and directs tire manufacturers and brand name owners to maintain or have maintained for them records of the information acquired on these registration forms (49 CFR 574.7(b)).; A billing arrangement of the type your client suggests would in effec make the tire manufacturer or brand name owner the agent of the dealer or distributor for purposes of grading and registering tires. Such a practice would run counter to the intention of the agency that manufacturers and brand name owners bear primary responsibility for implementation of tire grading and registration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will take whatever action is necessary, including possible revision of the regulations, to prevent manipulation of the tire regulations in this manner.; Apart from the legal implications of your client's proposal, NHTS would question the soundness, from a business standpoint, of a plan for direct billing of UTQG and tire recordkeeping costs. Your client's proposed course of action appears to have the aim of generating dissatisfaction with Federal tire regulations among dealers and distributors, and could, by lessening cooperation at the retail level, interfere with your client's ability to fulfill its obligations under the regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3512OpenMr. Joseph Granatelli, President, Grancor, Inc., 929 Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90404; Mr. Joseph Granatelli President Grancor Inc. 929 Olympic Boulevard Santa Monica CA 90404; Dear Mr. Granatelli: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1981, with respect t 'a non-substantive disagreement' of your Safety Alert Device 'with a strict interpretation of (FMVSS No. 108)'. Your system is wired into and operated through a vehicle's back-up lamp system which you have modified by adding 'a yellow sleeve over half of the back-up light bulb'. You state that the light cast is 'essentially the same as the white light. You further say that any deviation from Standard No. 108's requirement that back-up lamps emit white light is 'nonsubstantive'.; I assume that your letter to me is in response to the one that Georg Parker, Chief, Crash Avoidance Division, sent you on September 2, 1981. In that letter he explained that S4.1.3 prohibits the addition of equipment 'that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment' required by Standard No. 108, and stated that any activation of your system while the back-up lamps are in operation would be covered by this prohibition. As for color, you were informed that S4.1.3 imposed an absolute prohibition if the color of the light emitted by the deceleration warning system were green or white.; We cannot concur that the deviation from Standard No. 108 i 'non-substantive'. Standard No. 108 requires back-up lamps to be installed in motor vehicles and to emit a white light. We view S4.1.3 as precluding any device that would operate lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 for a purpose other than that for which it is originally installed. Further, even if your system did not operate through the back-up lamp system but through separate and additional lamps, we would view use of a color other than red or amber as an impairment of the equipment originally installed to indicate the deceleration through braking of the vehicle (*i.e.*,, stop lamps).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4687OpenMr. M. Iwase General Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken Japan; Mr. M. Iwase General Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi Shizuoka-Ken Japan; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in response to your letter of November 20, l99 with respect to 'interpretation and/or petition' concerning combination headlighting systems. Koito has asked about the permissibility of two or four lamp headlighting systems in which the upper beam would be provided by integral beam headlamps, and the lower beam by replaceable bulb headlamps. The systems you describe would not be permissible under Standard No. 108, which allows only the three types of headlighting systems that you mention. Integral beam headlighting systems must be comprised of integral beam headlamps which, by definition, are headlamps other than sealed beam or replaceable bulb headlamps. Replaceable bulb headlighting systems are those that incorporate the standardized replaceable light sources listed in Standard No. 108. We are transmitting your request to the Office of Rulemaking, for consideration as a petition for rulemaking. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3142OpenMr. Alan L. Sinder, Manager, Vehicle Products Group, Veeder-Root Company, Hartford, Connecticut 06102; Mr. Alan L. Sinder Manager Vehicle Products Group Veeder-Root Company Hartford Connecticut 06102; Dear Mr. Sinder: This is in response to your letter of August 21, 1979, asking whethe Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*, applies to your product, the Veeder-Root 7-Day Tachograph, and whether the odometer provisions of the standard would apply if your product were installed in vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of less than 16,000 pounds. You also asked whether a tachograph installed in a school bus as a replacement for the speedometer and marked with speeds from 0 to 50 mph on both the dial and on the inside chart would comply with Safety Standard 127.; Section 4.1.1 of Safety Standard 127 requires that 'each motor vehicl shall have a speedometer that meets the requirements ...' of the standard. Section 4.2.1 requires that 'each motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 16,000 pounds or less shall have an odometer that meets the requirements ...' of the standard. Therefore a tachograph installed in lieu of the speedometer and odometer in a new vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 16,000 pounds or less must meet both the speedometer and the odometer requirements of Safety Standard 127. If the new vehicle in which the tachograph were installed had a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 16,000 pounds the speedometer requirement of Safety Standard 127 would apply but the odometer requirements would not.; If the tachograph were installed in a new vehicle as a supplement to existing speedometer and odometer which meet the requirements of Safety Standard 127, the provisions of Safety Standard No. 127 would not apply to the tachograph.; Section 4.1.4 of Safety Standard 127 provides that: >>>No speedometer shall have graduation or numerical values for speed greater than 140 km/h and 85 mph and shall not otherwise indicate such speeds.<<<; Although this section specifies the maximum speed indication which ma appear on the dial of a speedometer, it does not prohibit the use of a lower maximum speed indication. Section 4.1.5 of the standard provides that 'each speedometer shall include the numeral '55' in the mph scale.' However, this provision assumes that the speedometer dial will have calibrations for speeds in excess of 55 mph. If the speedometer dial will not include calibrations for speeds of 55 mph and above, then there is no requirement that the numeral 55 be included in the mph scale. This follows from the rationale on which Safety Standard 127 is based, which is to reduce the temptation for drivers to test the top speeds of their vehicles and to induce greater compliance with the national maximum speed limit of 55 mph.; I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not bee greatly inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1485OpenMr. Rick Shue, Product Safety Engineer, Volvo of America Corporation, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. Rick Shue Product Safety Engineer Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Shue:#This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1974, t Mr. Schneider requesting an interpretation of identification requirements of Standard No. 101 as it applies to your proposed 1975 headlamp switch identification plate.#The standard provides that a symbol may be used to identify the lighting control. Your plate would use three symbols to identify lighting control operational positions, a different matter. Therefore, your use of the plate is not prohibited by Standard No. 101.#In response to your other questions, as this agency has previously noted (36 F.R. 8296, May 4, 1971), the NHTSA intends the headlamp symbol to be representative only and 'A symbol resembling the one published, with as few as three rays of light, may be used. . . .' The beams of the headlamp symbol, however, must face in the direction shown in Table I, to the right of the lamp. We have proposed adoption of the ISO symbol in which the beams are to the left (38 F.R. 26940, September 27, 1973) but no action has been taken on the proposal.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2303OpenMr. Marvin L. Hancks, Chief, Procurement Law Division, Headquarters, U.S. Army Armament Command, Department of the Army, Rock Island, Illinois 61201; Mr. Marvin L. Hancks Chief Procurement Law Division Headquarters U.S. Army Armament Command Department of the Army Rock Island Illinois 61201; Dear Mr. Hancks: This responds to your April 13, 1976, request for written confirmatio that the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*, do not preclude the use of brake fluid dispensing devices which are used without attachment to the brake fluid container.; Paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Standard no. 116 specifies the information tha packagers of brake fluids are required to place on the outside of the brake fluid container. Subsection (g) of this paragraph specifies four warnings that must be marked on the container. There labeling requirements apply only to the brake fluid container. The requirements do not apply to use of the brake fluid, and therefore do not create duties on the part of the user to abide by the warnings. The purpose of these requirements is only to ensure that purchasers are warned of potential safety hazards that can result from improper use and storage of the product.; Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3841OpenJohn G. Bobak, President, Crest Industries, Inc., 3841 13th Street, Wyandolte, MI 48192; John G. Bobak President Crest Industries Inc. 3841 13th Street Wyandolte MI 48192; Dear Mr. Bobak: This responds to your letter of May 9, 1984, regarding the applicatio of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 212, *Windshield retention* and standard No. 216, *Roof crush resistance* to aftermarket windshield adhesives. Your specific question concerned a statement made by Kent Industries that its urethane windshield adjesive 'meets and exceeds' those two standards.; You are correct in your understanding that Standards Nos. 212 and 21 only apply to newly manufactured motor vheicles. The standards establish a certain level of performance for those vehicles and do not set specifications for such individual vehicle components as windshield adhesive. In addition, neither of these standards apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, such as windshield adhesive, sold as aftermarket products.; If you have any further questions please let me know. 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.