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: aiam5515OpenMr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Manager, Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 3000 Hamlin Road Auburn Hills, MI 48326; Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Manager Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America Inc. 3000 Hamlin Road Auburn Hills MI 48326; "Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your letter of March 6, 1995 asking for an interpretation of the license plate requirements of Standard No. 108. SAE J587 OCT81 is the SAE standard that has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that 'paragraph 6.1 of SAE J587, which relates solely to the mounting angle of the license plate and not to the performance of the license plate lamp, is not included in the requirements of FMVSS 108.' This paragraph requires that, when the license plate lamp is mounted on the vehicle, the angle between the plane of the license plate and the plane on which the vehicle stands will be 90 degrees plus or minus 15 degrees. You believe that 'license plate mounting for visibility is a matter of concern for State law enforcement agencies and Volkswagen is not aware of any State laws that make reference to SAE J587 or that specify the mounting angle of the license plate.' However, you acknowledge 'that paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of SAE J587 specifying the angle of incidence of the lamp to the plate at a minimum of 8 degrees is part of FMVSS 108 and is intended to assure that the lamp illuminates the license plate.' You believe 'that a design which meets the 8 degree requirement and in which the plate is mounted so as to be clearly visible to an observer at the rear of the vehicle meets the intent and requirements of State laws and FMVSS 108, even if the angle of the plate itself is 15 degrees from the vertical.' We cannot agree with your interpretation. Tables I and III have incorporated SAE J587 in its entirety, and there is no exclusion of paragraph 6.1 in Standard No. 108. To be sure, a plate may continue to be visible when it is mounted more than 15 degrees from the vertical, but the 15 degree limitation of paragraph 6.1 is necessary to ensure its legibility as well. The fact that the States and the Uniform Vehicle Code are silent on the point is legally irrelevant. If a State has a license plate mounting requirement, 49 U.S.C. 30103 requires it to be identical to the Federal requirement. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1556OpenMr. R.W. Hildebrandt, Group Director of Engineering, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group, The Bendix Corporation, 901 Cleveland Street, Elyria, OH 44035; Mr. R.W. Hildebrandt Group Director of Engineering Heavy Vehicle Systems Group The Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria OH 44035; Dear Mr. Hildebrandt: This responds to Bendix's June 10, 1974, request for interpretation o the Standard No. 121 requirement in S5.5.1 that 'on a vehicle equipped with an antilock system, electrical failure of any part of the antilock system shall not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes.' You ask whether this language permits use of a separate device that senses electrical failure in the antilock system and automatically reduces pressure to the front brakes as a safety measure. The device would increase brake actuation and release time.; S5.5 is addressed to antilock systems and S5.5.1 mandates that antiloc systems be designed not to interfere with air brake performance if they fail electrically. S5.5.1 does not prohibit separate safety devices which are designed to operate in the event of antilock electrical failure to compensate for that failure. Therefore the Bendix automatic front axle limiting system, as we understand its operation, is not prohibited by S5.5.1 simply because it operates when it senses an antilock electrical failure.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4754OpenMr. Ed McCarron Western Star Trucks Inc. 2076 Enterprise Way Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1Y 6H8; Mr. Ed McCarron Western Star Trucks Inc. 2076 Enterprise Way Kelowna British Columbia Canada V1Y 6H8; "Dear Mr. McCarron: This responds to your letter asking about th application of Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to a particular mattress design, and how the mattress would be tested under the standard. I regret the delay in responding. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 302 sets forth a listing of the vehicle occupant compartment components that must be certified as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. Paragraph S4.1 includes a reference to 'mattress covers.' You ask whether NHTSA would consider six components of your mattress design to be included in the term 'mattress cover' and thus subject to Standard 302. (The first five components you ask about, and a portion of the sixth, satisfy the criterion in S4.2 of being within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment air space.) As we understand your sketch, the first three components (which you called the 'cover,' 'foam' and 'foam backing') encase the mattress core, or filling. As such, if our understanding is correct, these three constitute the mattress ticking, which we consider as the fabric case permanently enclosing the filling of a mattress. NHTSA has said in past interpretations of Standard 302 that the term 'mattress cover' includes both a removable covering put over a finished mattress and the mattress ticking. Thus, the first three components would be subject to the standard. These three components, which you said in a telephone conversation are quilted together, would be tested separately under S4.2.1 of the standard if they do not adhere to other materials at every point of contact. (The fact that these three are quilted, or stitched, indicates to us that they do not so adhere.) If any of these components adhere to other material at every point of contact, then it would be tested as a composite with the other material. The fourth component in your sketch is the mattress 'fill.' Paragraph S4.1 of the standard lists mattress covers only. NHTSA has consistently interpreted S4.1 as not including the mattress filling. The fifth component is a fabric 'corner reinforcement' that appears to be approximately two inches in length and stitched on the outside of the mattress cover. NHTSA indicated in interpretative letters of Standard 302 dated December 15, 1972 and May 1, 1972 that a component that is 'incorporated into' a component that is listed in S4.1 is subject to the standard. (The agency said in the December 1972 letter that 'mattress cover' includes tufting, since tufting is incorporated into mattress covers.) Since the fifth component is sewn to the corner of the mattress and appears to be made part of the mattress cover, we believe that the corner reinforcement is incorporated into the mattress cover. Thus, the fifth component would be subject to the standard. If it does not adhere to another material at every point of contact, it is tested separately under S4.2.1. The sixth component is the 'fill backing' which appears to be an internal divider between the mattress fill and the springs. It appears from your sketch that the fill backing is not part of the mattress ticking, because the backing is inside the mattress and is separate from the mattress ticking. Thus, we conclude the sixth component is excluded from the standard. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3091OpenHonorable Thomas F. Eagleton, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Thomas F. Eagleton United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Eagleton: This responds to your August 23, 1979, letter asking whether brake installed in vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, can be modified or disconnected.; Your question asks whether these brake systems can be rendere inoperative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) states that --; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....<<<<; Whether a portion of the air brake system can be rendered inoperativ depends, therefore, upon whether that part of the brake system was installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha concluded that portions of the braking systems installed in compliance with the sections of Standard No. 121 that were invalidated by the court were not installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Accordingly, these devices can be disconnected by a commercial facility. In general, this means that the antilock devices installed on trucks and trailers may be disconnected or removed. However, other components of the braking system that were installed in compliance with the remaining applicable sections of the standard may not be rendered inoperative by a commercial facility. Therefore, entire braking systems cannot be removed from trucks and trailers. The NHTSA recommends that any modification of the braking systems be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.; In a related question, you ask who will bear the cost of disconnectin the braking systems, the manufacturer or the purchaser. We believe that the cost of modifying the braking system, depending on the circumstances, is a matter that may be negotiated between the parties.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam1106OpenMr. Shahid R. Khan, Engineer, Flex-N-Gate, 1306 E. University Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801; Mr. Shahid R. Khan Engineer Flex-N-Gate 1306 E. University Avenue Urbana IL 61801; Dear Mr. Khan: In your letter of April 17, 1973 to Mr. Schneider you ask whether th Federal lighting standard, No. 108, applies to you as a manufacturer of rear step-hitch bumpers for pick-up trucks. Since the bumper installation interferes with the original vehicle license plate mounting bracket, provision is made for relocating the license plate in the bumper. You apparently do not yourself mount the bumper to the vehicle, as your letter indicates that they are sold as aftermarket items 'to purchasers of new trucks' and to two truck manufacturers 'who install these items before the trucks are released to the dealers'.; Under the circumstances you describe, Standard No. 108 would not appl to you. Compliance and certification of new vehicles is the responsibility of the truck manufacturers who install the bumpers, although you may have a contractual obligation with them to provide license plate lighting meeting Federal requirements. In the aftermarket, if the bumper is installed prior to delivery of the truck to the purchaser, the dealer making the installation is legally responsible for compliance with Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4304OpenMr. Goro Utsunomiya, Branch Manager, Mazda, Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office, 1444 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, CA 92705; Mr. Goro Utsunomiya Branch Manager Mazda Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office 1444 McGaw Avenue Irvine CA 92705; Dear Mr. Utsunomiya: This is in response to your letter of May 9, 1974, requesting a interpretation of the test procedure specified in Standard No. 301 (Docket No. 73-20, Notice 2) concerning the operation of the vehicle's fuel pump during testing.; Paragraph S7.1.3 of the standard requires that electrically driven fue pumps be in operation during the barrier crash tests if they normally operate with the activation of the vehicle's electrical system. If the pump is incapable of functioning with the independent activation of the electrical system and requires the operation of the vehicle's engine, then the pump should not be running during the barrier crash tests.; Based upon the description you provide in your letter, it appears tha you should conduct your barrier crash testing without operating the fuel pump.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2403OpenMr. Donald I. Reed, Executive Secretary, Trailer Manufacturers Association, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60611; Mr. Donald I. Reed Executive Secretary Trailer Manufacturers Association 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60611; Dear Mr. Reed: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1976, asking for a interpretation of two provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have informed us that 'some manufacturers are mounting lamps usin lock washers and wing nuts rather than conventional nuts to facilitate the installation of lamps when boat trailers are assembled at the dealer level.' S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires that lamps 'shall be securely mounted . . . .' and you asked whether wing nuts, used as you described, provide a mounting that complies with S4.3.1. The answer is that this would appear to provide a secure mounting within the intent of Standard No. 108.; S4.3.1.3 requires that front side marker lamps for trailers be locate as far to the front as practicable, exclusive of its tongue. You ask whether 'the tongue is considered to start where the trailer frame begins to angle inward from its parallel sides . . . .' The answer is yes.; I hope this clarifies Standard No. 108 for you and your members. Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4884OpenMrs. Elizabeth Anania 3045 Granville Drive Raleigh, NC 27609; Mrs. Elizabeth Anania 3045 Granville Drive Raleigh NC 27609; "Dear Mrs. Anania: This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke o my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle. You explained that your husband, Vincent Anania, has some paralysis of his right arm and hand as a result of a stroke a year ago. You explained that your husband wishes to begin driving again and was recently evaluated by Bryant Driving School in Raleigh who determined that he was qualified to drive. However, the seat in your automobile does not move far enough back to allow your husband to enter the vehicle. You asked for permission to have your vehicle modified so that the seat can move further back. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulations will be of assistance to you. I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your husband's condition. We caution, however, that only modifications necessary to accommodate your husband's condition should be made to the seat. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2053OpenMr. K. Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 1099 Wall Street, West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, in which you aske whether the uniform tire quality grading requirements for furnishing information to prospective purchasers of vehicles apply to prospective purchasers of vehicles other than passenger cars that may be equipped with passenger car tires. This was asked in light of the fact that the tire quality grading rule itself applies to tires manufactured for use on passenger cars.; We do not consider that the requirements of S 575.6(a) and (c) regarding the furnishing of consumer information to motor vehicle buyers and prospective purchasers, apply to the sale of trucks or other non-passenger- car vehicles where uniform tire quality grading information is concerned.; We recognize that the language of the regulation may not be entirel clear in this regard, and are considering an interpretive amendment to clarify it.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0594OpenMr. Gerald E. Bowman, Chief Executive Officer, Winnebago Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 152, Forest City, IA 50436; Mr. Gerald E. Bowman Chief Executive Officer Winnebago Industries Inc. P.O. Box 152 Forest City IA 50436; Dear Mr. Bowman: We have received your quarterly report pursuant to section 573.5 of th Defect Reports regulations and note that you have marked 'confidential' data submitted concerning a notification campaign conducted on your Model 04 motor home.; The NHTSA does not consider information regarding notificatio campaigns to be confidential under sections 112 or 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1401, 1402), and is making this information public. The only information that we have agreed to keep confidential, if requested, are production figures submitted pursuant to section 573.5(b).; 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.