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: aiam4826OpenMr. Gene Schlanger President ROC Capital, Inc. 63 Greens Road Hollywood, FL 33021; Mr. Gene Schlanger President ROC Capital Inc. 63 Greens Road Hollywood FL 33021; "Dear Mr. Schlanger: This is in reply to your FAX of January 3, l991 to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking about the permissibility under Federal and State regulations of a 'lighted sign' on which messages could be scrolled from left to right. Such a sign 'is designed to be mounted inside the car, either on a rear or side window.' However, 'if that is deemed legally inappropriate, the sign can be designed to be placed outside on the roof of the auto.' The sign would incorporate LEDs and would not project a beam or flash. You intend to sell it 'to the general public.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no specific Federal motor vehicle safety standard that addresses your device, nor any prohibition against your selling it. The question arises, however, as to whether and under what circumstances Federal law may allow its use. As a general rule, aftermarket equipment such as this is acceptable under Federal law provided that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, does not entail removal of, or otherwise rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that removal by any of the persons just mentioned of the high-mounted stop lamp that has been required on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985, in order to substitute your lighted sign, would be a violation of Federal law. The question arises of whether the lighted sign may be installed in the rear window of any other vehicle, or in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, or on the top of any vehicle, situations where there is no direct removal of safety equipment. The agency regards any impairment of the effectiveness of rear lighting equipment as tantamount to rendering it partially inoperative. Thus, if aftermarket equipment is likely to create confusion or distraction in a following motorist, we regard it as likely to impair the messages that required lighting equipment is supposed to impart. A lighted sign with a changing message is likely to create a distraction, diverting attention from signals sent by stop lamps or turn signal lamps. Thus, we believe that this device has the potential of rendering those lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. Even when installed in a side window, where it may not be visible directly to the rear, the device has the potential of distraction when the vehicle carrying it is approached in other lanes, i.e., at an angle from the rear. We are unable to tell you whether the device is illegal under the laws of each of the 50 States. If you are interested in pursuing this question, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1777OpenMr. C. M. Xeros, Chief Engineer, Marmon Motor Co., P.O. Box 5175, Dallas, TX 75222; Mr. C. M. Xeros Chief Engineer Marmon Motor Co. P.O. Box 5175 Dallas TX 75222; Dear Mr. Xeros: This responds to your January 15, 1975, request for confirmation that vehicle is complete for purposes of establishing its 'date of manufacture' and the applicability of Federal motor vehicles safety standards, although minor finishing operations and the attachment of mirrors, grab rails, etc. have not been accomplished.; As you describe the type of minor finish work and readily attachabl components which remain uncompleted, your vehicles would be complete for purposes of establishing 'date of manufacture.' I enclose a discussion of this concept as it applies to truck, bus, and trailer manufacture under Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0865OpenMr. Gerald D. Stapley, K-146 Northwood Apartments, Capital Hill Drive, RFD-2, Londonderry, NH 03053; Mr. Gerald D. Stapley K-146 Northwood Apartments Capital Hill Drive RFD-2 Londonderry NH 03053; Dear Mr. Stapley: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1972, proposing 'tha legal standards for the performance of windshield defrosting systems be established and applied to vehicles manufactured in or imported into USA.'; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened Docke No. 1-3 to receive comments on extension of coverage of the passenger car defrosting and defogging system standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Ice or slush buildup on the windshield, as well as the overall performance of the defroster system, are among the problems and concerns currently being investigated by the NHTSA.; We plan to combine all the problems associated with vision an precipitation into an Adverse Weather Visibility standard such as you suggest in your letter. This would also include wiping and washing requirements. At the present time research has been initiated to obtain data so that we can propose definite performance requirements for all types of weather conditions. Under our Program Plan such a standard would become effective September 1, 1976.; Your suggestion and the mention of the specific problems ar appreciated and will be considered as we proceed in our rulemaking. Thank you for writing and if we can be of further service, please let us know.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2858OpenMr. J. W. Yarbrough, Assistant Superintendent for Business, West Seneca Central School District, 45 Allendale, West Seneca, NY 14224; Mr. J. W. Yarbrough Assistant Superintendent for Business West Seneca Central School District 45 Allendale West Seneca NY 14224; Dear Mr. Yarbrough: This responds to your May 4, 1978, letter asking whether you can modif several buses that you have purchased by adding stanchion bars near the front door to facilitate the loading of smaller school children.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not prohibi the use of stanchion bars in school buses. Some manufacturers, however, have discontinued putting them in buses because it is difficult to pad them sufficiently such that they comply with the head impact zone requirements when the bars fall within the head impact zone.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act prohibits modification of vehicles by repair businesses, dealers, or manufacturers that would render inoperative compliance with safety standards (section 108(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, if a dealer, repair business, or manufacturer were to install stanchion bars in your school buses, it would be required to ensure that the installation does not render inoperative compliance with the head impact zone requirements. The Act does not prohibit, however, modifications by individuals of their vehicles even when such modification would not comply with Federal safety standards. Accordingly, a school district could itself install stanchion bars that do not comply with the head impact zone requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4575OpenMr. Robbie Folino-Nazda Attorney-in-Fact Fritz Companies, Inc. 7550 22nd Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450; Mr. Robbie Folino-Nazda Attorney-in-Fact Fritz Companies Inc. 7550 22nd Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55450; Dear Mr. Folino-Nazda: We have received a copy of your letter o December l9, l988, to Commissioner Young of the Food and Drug Administration, forwarded to us by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. You have asked whether the 'vehicle safety device' you described (with samples enclosed) are subject to any restrictions which would prevent importation of the device. The device provides an 'ultrasonic animal warning.' At a speed 'over 30 mph air flow produces a high pitch whistle which animals try to avoid.' It is designed for owner installation on 'bumpers, grills, fenders, mirrors and roofs' of motor vehicles. Because the device is intended solely as an accessory to motor vehicles, it is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the jurisdiction of this agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to this type of equipment. You should also be aware that if the device's manufacturer ('manufacturer' includes both the maker as well as any importer for resale) or this agency were to determine that the device contains a safety-related defect, importers of this foreign-made device would be required by the Vehicle Safety Act to recall the device and remedy the defect or replace the device without charge. We are returning your samples to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1327OpenMr. L. Clinton Rich, R.F. & W. Auto Wheel Service, 2807 Cresmont Avenue, Baltimore, Md. 21211; Mr. L. Clinton Rich R.F. & W. Auto Wheel Service 2807 Cresmont Avenue Baltimore Md. 21211; Dear Mr. Rich: Confirming our recent conversation: No Federal motor vehicle safet standard regulates the straightening and subsequent sale of motor vehicle wheels.; Our regulations are applicable to the manufacture and sale of new moto vehicle and motor vehicle equipment only up to the point of their first sale for purposes other than resale. I assume that straightened wheels are used equipment that has been reworked, and as such they would not be subject to any standard unless they were placed on new vehicles as original equipment. There is a standard, No. 110, that applies to passenger cars, requiring the wheel rims to meet the rim manufacturer's specified rim dimensions and to retain a tire which loses all pressure at 60 miles per hour.; A regulation applying directly to wheels is under consideration, but i would still apply only to new equipment and vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4125OpenMr. Bob Carlson, 8305 29th Avenue, N.W., Seattle, WA 98117; Mr. Bob Carlson 8305 29th Avenue N.W. Seattle WA 98117; Dear Mr. Carlson: This responds to your January 23, 1986 letter inquiring about Federa motor vehicle safety standards applicable to your projected sale of aftermarket windshield wiper systems for trucks.; 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. As you note, this standard applies to trucks, as well as other types of vehicles. In your letter, you ask which performance requirements apply to wiping systems for trucks.; Under S4. *Requirements*, new trucks are required to have power-driven windshield wiping system that meets the requirements of S4.1.1. The frequency requirements in S4.1.1 apply to trucks, but the wiped area requirements of S4.1.2 apply only to passenger cars. Trucks must also have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965, except that the 'effective wipe pattern' is considered to be 'the pattern designed by the manufacturer for the windshield wiping system on the exterior surface of the windshield glazing.' Therefore, the vehicle manufacturer establishes the wipe pattern of the system.; If a new truck equipped with your wiper system did not comply wit Standard No. 104 due to some aspect of that system, the sale of that truck 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.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3930OpenMs. Beatrice Ho, Honest International Corp., P.O. Box 851391, Richardson, TX 75081; Ms. Beatrice Ho Honest International Corp. P.O. Box 851391 Richardson TX 75081; Dear Ms. Ho: This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of this agency' Rulemaking Division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a child restraint which has been certified as meeting the Japanese safety standard could automatically be considered as complying with Standard No. 213, and, if not, asked for the names and addresses of the U.S. testing laboratories.; There is no requirement that the measures, such as testing, taken by manufacturer to demonstrate it exercised due care to produce an item of equipment in accordance with Standard No. 213, be performed in this country. If a foreign standard is essentially identical to Standard No. 213, then it may be that the efforts made by a manufacturer in a foreign country to show compliance with that country's standard could form the basis for the manufacturer's certification that its product complied with Standard No. 213. The adequacy of those efforts would depend on a variety of factors, including the degree of similarity between the standards and the resources available to the manufacturer to determine its compliance. For additional information relating to your question, please see the enclosed letter written last year to an Austrian child restraint manufacturer. That letter explains in detail the procedures for certifying compliance with Standard No. 213.; For purposes of enforcing Standard No. 213, this agency conducts spo checks of child restraints after they have been certified by the manufacturer as complying with the standard, by purchasing child restraints and testing them in accordance with the procedures specified in the standard. If the child restraints pass those tests, no further steps are taken.; If a child restraint fails the tests and is determined not to compl with Standard No. 213 or if it is determined that the child restraint contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer of the child restraint is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:; (1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance i removed, or; (2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonabl equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.; Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacture must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.; Should you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2622OpenMr. Jerry W. McNeil, Director of Engineering, American Trailers, Inc., Box 26568, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126; Mr. Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering American Trailers Inc. Box 26568 Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73126; Dear Mr McNeil: This responds to your May 25, 1977, letter asking whether two sampl certification labels you submitted comply with the requirements of Part 567, *Certification*, and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The National HIghway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The two labels you submitted do not follow the format required by Part 567 for certification labels. Therefore, they do not appear to comply with the requirements. Your method of stating tire and rim sizes differs from that required in Part 567 and Standard No. 120. For example, you state your tire and rim information as follows: '10-20-f-Tires-7.5 Rims at 75 PSI Cold Dual.' By the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 as they apply to certification labels, this information should read: '10.00-20(f) tires, 20x7.5 rims, at 75 psi cold dual.' Further, the statement after GAWR 'maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below' should be deleted from the certification label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 for your information.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2272OpenMr. R. E. Mindheim, Chief Engineer, Safety & Warranty, White Motor Corporation, P.O. Box 91500, Cleveland, OH 44101; Mr. R. E. Mindheim Chief Engineer Safety & Warranty White Motor Corporation P.O. Box 91500 Cleveland OH 44101; Dear Mr. Mindheim: This responds to White Motor Corporation's March 26, 1976, request fo confirmation that the brake systems of incomplete and complete vehicles to which Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, applies, may be modified by White under provisions of paragraph 567.7 of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, or paragraph 568.5 of 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*.; Paragraph 567.7 provides that a person may alter a previously certifie vehicle prior to the first retail sale, and that the person must state that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with applicable standards if weight ratings or other than readily attachable components have been affected. The person may choose any point from the date of certification to the date alterations were completed as the date of the alterer's statement. The NHTSA would not consider White to be violating its certification responsibilities by alterations of the brake system that you describe, as long as White indicates the modifications under the provisions of paragraph 567.7.; Paragraph 568.5 of Part 568 provides that an intermediate manufacture may modify an incomplete vehicle. Under this paragraph, the intermediate manufacturer must furnish an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document reflecting any changes that should be made in the document because of modifications by the intermediate manufacturer that have affected validity of certain statements. White could utilize this provision to modify the vehicle so long as the addendum of changes is furnished along with the incomplete document.; As a practical result of the changes you describe, the final-stag manufacturer will not, as is normally the case, be able to utilize any date between the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle and the date of final completion as the basis of certification. Therefore, it may be advisable for White to issue a new incomplete vehicle document to assist the final-stage manufacturer in its certification responsibilities. Whenever this is not practical, a notation that the final-stage manufacturer's choice of dates has been limited by White's modification should be made in the addendum to the original document.; This discussion appears to conflict with the definition of intermediat manufacturer that appears in S 568.3. However, the definition is not intended to prevent the modifications you intend to undertake, and an interpretative amendment is being considered to clarify the breadth of the definition.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.