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: aiam5558OpenMr. R. F. Tolley Senior Development Engineer New Products Office Magneti Marelli UK Ltd. Lighting Division Walkmill Lane, Cannock Staffordshire WS11 3LP England; Mr. R. F. Tolley Senior Development Engineer New Products Office Magneti Marelli UK Ltd. Lighting Division Walkmill Lane Cannock Staffordshire WS11 3LP England; "Dear Mr. Tolley: This responds to your letter of April 28, 1995 asking for an interpretation of the torque deflection test specified in paragraph S7.8.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The second sentence of this paragraph states that 'The downward force used to create the torque shall be applied parallel to the aiming reference plane, through the aiming pads, and displaced forward using a lever arm such that the force is applied on an axis that is perpendicular to the aiming reference plane and originates at the center of the aiming pad pattern.' You believe that the instructions for performing the test are not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in different ways. Specifically, you are concerned that the standard fails to adequately define the center of rotation of force, which is necessary to determine the downward force applied to the headlamp. We agree with you, and are examining ways in which the standard might be amended to address the problem you have brought to our attention. Noting that you have presented four possible answers (as well as 'some other point'), our comment is that, until NHTSA clarifies the matter, a manufacturer should choose a center of rotation that appears the most appropriate for the design of mechanically aimable headlamp under consideration, in certifying that the headlamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that we could not be more helpful at this point. If you have any questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263). Sincerely John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1848OpenMr. G. Meier, Technical Service Manager, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. G. Meier Technical Service Manager Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Meier: This is in reference to your safety defect notification and remed campaign (NHTSA No 75-0022) concerning a nut used to secure the front exhaust pipe bracket to the automatic transmission housing which may loosen.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject vehicle does not entirely meet the requirements of section 153 of the 1974 amendment to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Specifically, your letter fails to inform recipients that they may notify the Secretary of Transportation if they are unable to have the defect remedied without charge, as required by section 153(a)(6). The address for this purpose may be given as: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590. We also believe that your statement, 'although the possibility of a fire is remote,' is a disclaimer, and is prohibited by 49 CFR S577.6. Likewise use of the word 'may' in your second sentence implies that possibly a defect does not exist and is therefore also prohibited. Your letter also fails to contain an evaluation of the risk to motor vehicle safety as required by section 153(a)(2).; It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification lette and send a copy to each owner whose vehicle has not yet been corrected. A copy should also be sent to this office.; If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. Reinhar or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840. A copy of the 1974 amendment is enclosed.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3875OpenMr. Verne L. Freeland, P.O. Box 693652, Miami, FL 33269; Mr. Verne L. Freeland P.O. Box 693652 Miami FL 33269; Dear Mr. Freeland: This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of the Rulemaking divisio of this agency, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, *Child restraint systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that you had developed a child restraint system which was built into the vehicle seat, and asked how to proceed to have this child restraint certified as complying with Standard No. 213. As currently written, Standard No. 213 does not accommodate your type of restraint.; A manufacturer of a child restraint system is required to certify tha each child restraint system manufactured by it complies with all of the requirements of Standard No. 213, and adding a statement to that effect to the label required by section S5.5 of the Standard. This certification need not be based on actual test results, NHTSA only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what test results, engineering analysis, or other data would be sufficient to enable it to meet the due care requirement in certifying that its child restraints comply with the standard. Certainly, we would recommend that a manufacturer marketing a new child restraint design test that restraint in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard.; As you will see from the enclosed copy of Standard No. 213, Sectio S5.3.1 of the standard requires each child restraint system to be capable of being restrained by a type 1 seat belt system. In addition, the test procedures in section S6 specify that the child restraint is to be tested by attaching it to a standard vehicle seat solely by the vehicle seat's lap belts. Your design, which incorporates the restraint into a vehicle seat, could not be attached to a standard vehicle seat by means of lap belts.; Standard No. 213 would have to be amended in order for you to be abl to certify that your child restraint satisfies all the requirements of that standard. 49 CFR Part 552, *Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders* (copy enclosed) gives interested persons the right to petition this agency for amendments (sic) a safety standard, and sets forth the required contents of the petition, the address to which it should be sent, and the procedures which will be followed by the agency in evaluating the petition. If you wish, you may file such a petition. Should such a petition be granted, this agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard No. 213.; If you have some further questions or need further information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2767OpenMr. Donald Reed, Trailer Manufacturers Association, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611; Mr. Donald Reed Trailer Manufacturers Association 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago Illinois 60611; Dear mr. Reed: This responds to your December 22, 1977, letter asking whether the tir information label required by Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, must contain the rim size of the rim that is mounted in the vehicle.; Paragraph S5.3.2. of the standard states that the label must contai 'the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for those tires.' This paragraph specifically permits a manufacturer to equip a vehicle with rim sizes that differ from those listed on its tire information label.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5108OpenMr. Stan Kaplan Shimazaki Corp. 10 Columbus Circle New York, NY 10019; Mr. Stan Kaplan Shimazaki Corp. 10 Columbus Circle New York NY 10019; "Dear Mr. Kaplan: This responds to your letter of December 10, 1992 with respect to the relationship of Federal motor vehicle regulations to the Red Alert device that you wish to import and sell in the United States. The device is located on the accelerator rod. When there is a sudden release of the accelerator, the stop lamps are activated before the driver's foot has touched the service brake pedal. You state also that installation of the device is quick and simple, requiring 10 to 15 minutes and no special tools. You have asked if Red Alert 'meets the standard set by your administration and the (sic) how we can get a waiver on this product or does it require one at all.' The descriptive literature that you enclosed notes (under 'Authorization Requirements for Installation') that 'there are many countries in which it is mandated by regulations that only the brake pedal activate the rear brake lights,' and that 'Red Alert, situated as it is on the accelerator rod, is illegal in these countries.' The United States is one of these countries. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the stop lamps may only be activated by the brake pedal. This means that a vehicle that is equipped with Red Alert no longer complies with Standard No. 108. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this means that the manufacturer of the vehicle, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who installs Red Alert is liable for a civil penalty for creating the noncompliance. In addition, if the noncompliance is created by the manufacturer of the vehicle, the manufacturer is obliged to notify owners of the noncompliance, and then to remedy it. However, the Act does not restrict the owner of the vehicle from such modifications as (s)he may perform, even if the modifications result in a noncompliance, unless State laws so forbid. Thus, Federal law does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Red Alert but (s)he may not enlist the services of a distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to perform the installation. In no circumstance is importation and sale of the device itself a violation of Federal law. These matters and the agency's views on the device are set forth more fully in the enclosed agency letter of January 25, 1990, concerning the Advanced Brake Light Device (ABLD). Noting that both the ABLD and Red Alert originate in Israel, we surmise that Red Alert is a variant of the ABLD. Although the interpretation in this letter does allow installation of the Red Alert at the hands of the vehicle owner, our conclusion is based upon Federal law and should not be construed as an endorsement of the device. The same safety concerns that we expressed in January 1990 remain valid today. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2337OpenMr. Gary R. Mercer, FAM Enterprises, P.O. Box 563, Shelby, MT 59474; Mr. Gary R. Mercer FAM Enterprises P.O. Box 563 Shelby MT 59474; Dear Mr. Mercer: This responds to your May 17, 1976, question whether special safet requirements exist for a vehicle that is modified to permit its operation by a handicapped person from a wheelchair that is secured at the driver's position.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the A) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that; >>>S 1397 (a)(1) No person shall -- (A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or delive for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment <<<; unless it is in conformity with all applicable standards. If you modifications are made to a new vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale and involve more than the addition of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, Part 567 of our regulations requires that the vehicle remain in compliance following these alterations and that any change of gross vehicle weight rating or type classification be noted (49 CFR 567.7).; Assuming that the vehicle you modify is a multipurpose passenge vehicle under NHTSA regulations (*e.g*., a van-type vehicle that does not qualify as a truck) (49 CFR 571.3), it appears from your description of intended modifications that compliance with the following Federal motor vehicle safety standards might be affected:>>>; Standard No. 101, *Control Location, Identification, and Display* Standard No. 102, *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starte Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect*; Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors* Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems* Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components* Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies* Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*<<< I have enclosed an information sheet that explains how to obtain copie of our standards and regulations.; There are no additional Federal motor vehicle safety requirements tha apply to vehicles operated by a handicapped person sitting at the driver's position in a wheelchair. I have enclosed a Veterans Administration document detailing their specifications for vehicle modifications.; Exemptions from the motor vehicle safety standards are available onl to the manufacturers of motor vehicles in accordance with S 123 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0424OpenMr. Joseph Kennebeck, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Joseph Kennebeck Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This letter will serve to confirm the interpretation of Standard No 215, Exterior Protection, that we gave you at our meeting of July 19, 1971. As we advised you at that time, the standard does not require the vehicle's bumpers to touch the impact line on the test device. The vehicle must touch the impact ridge, but it is permissible to do so without also touching the impact line.; If you have further questions of interpretation, please advise us. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2419OpenMr. Etsuo Yamazoe, Factory Manager, Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd., 1118, Sazuchi, Bessho, Himeji, Japan; Mr. Etsuo Yamazoe Factory Manager Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co. Ltd. 1118 Sazuchi Bessho Himeji Japan; Dear Mr. Yamazoe: #This is in belated response to your May 14, 1976 letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*. #The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognizes the designation 'NCRN' as identifying Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co. on all brake hoses and brake hose assemblies manufactured by Nichirin, regardless of whether these components are intended for use in hydraulics, air, or vacuum brake systems. #The NHTSA does not issue approvals of motor vehicle equipment prior to sale. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, certification of compliance with applicable safety standards is performed by the manufacturer. Standard No. 106-74 does not specify the testing which a manufacturer must do before certifying that his brake hose and assemblies comply, it does specify the performance levels which these products must meet when tested by the NHTSA for compliance. The manufacturer is required to exercise due care in assuring himself that his certification is neither false nor misleading. #Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5626OpenMr. Glenn J. Vick, National Account Manager Marketing and Sales Office Commercial Truck Vehicle Center Ford Automotive Operations Regent Court, Suite 950 16800 Executive Plaza Drive Dearborn, MI 48126; Mr. Glenn J. Vick National Account Manager Marketing and Sales Office Commercial Truck Vehicle Center Ford Automotive Operations Regent Court Suite 950 16800 Executive Plaza Drive Dearborn MI 48126; "Dear Mr. Vick: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab for use by final-stage manufacturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis. I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221. As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's delivery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as 'the incomplete vehicle document.') This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard: 1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, 2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard, or, 3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Standard No. 221. As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle. Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the final-stage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of the incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle. I hope this responds to your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4934OpenMr. Tony Llama President Davenport Enterprises 301 Almeria Ave., Suite 1 Coral Gables, FL 33134; Mr. Tony Llama President Davenport Enterprises 301 Almeria Ave. Suite 1 Coral Gables FL 33134; Dear Mr. Llama: This responds to your letter of December 13, l99l, wit respect to the permissibility of temporarily importing a Fiat from Brazil that is not in conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The purpose of the importation is to design and build an air conditioning system for the car. Upon completion of this work, the Fiat will be exported. You have enclosed a copy of my letter of August 2, 1990, granting permission for the importation of a van manufactured in the Soviet Union for which you had been asked to design an air conditioning system. In that letter, I informed you that it would be appropriate for you to enter the van pursuant to 49 CFR section 591.5(j), under the declaration that the vehicle is being imported solely for the purpose of research, investigations, and studies or demonstrations. Under the circumstances outlined in your letter, we believe that it would be appropriate for you to enter the Brazilian Fiat as well under section 591.5(j). If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.