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: aiam5549OpenMs. Mary J Gazich Owner - Clever Kids, Inc. 4091 Vermont Avenue Eagan, MN 55123; Ms. Mary J Gazich Owner - Clever Kids Inc. 4091 Vermont Avenue Eagan MN 55123; "Dear Ms. Gazich: This responds to your letter asking about how thi agency's regulations might apply to your product, the 'Smart Rider.' In your letter, you described the Smart Rider as a 'new automobile accessory for children.' It is a vinyl seat back protector that slips over one or both of the front seats and secured, we assume, with the two 3/4 inch elastic bands. The answer to your question is that there are no standards that apply directly to the Smart Rider, but there are Federal requirements that may affect it. I summarize below the relevant safety standards and laws you should consider. As you recognized in your letter, the Smart Rider is an accessory, a type of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. NHTSA has not issued any standards for an accessory such as the Smart Rider. For that reason, you should not place any label on your packaging to the effect that it meets Federal standards. Although no standards apply directly to the Smart Rider, its installation may affect vehicle compliance with certain safety standards. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that requires, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with that standard. If the vinyl of the Smart Rider is stiff enough, it might distribute the impact of the occupant's head over a larger area of the seat back than the vehicle manufacturer intended. As a result, the foam in the seat back might not compress as deeply as the manufacturer intended, and the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how stiff the vinyl is, and this may not be a problem, but it is something of which you should be aware. Another standard that you might want to consider is Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. That standard requires that seat backs not burn or transmit a flame front across their surface at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. If the Smart Rider were installed as part of a new vehicle, it would be considered part of the seat back. Which legal requirements apply depend to some extent on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the Smart Rider installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standards No. 201 and 302. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from 'knowingly mak ing inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .' For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the Smart Rider were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the installer to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'make inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, our standards would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Smart Rider in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether the Smart Rider would be permitted. I want to emphasize that NHTSA has not made a determination regarding the safety of the Smart Rider. NHTSA has not done any testing of your product. I am merely informing you of the applicable law and identifying a few potential problem areas for your consideration. I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2776OpenMr. R. M. Premo, Vehicle Planning and Development Center, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 3555 St. Johns Road, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. R. M. Premo Vehicle Planning and Development Center Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Premo: This confirms the discussion held among you, Mr. Roger Tilton, Mr. Gu Hunter, and Mr. Martin Paliokas on February 14, 1978, concerning the applicability of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*, and Standard No. 113, *Hood Latch Systems*, to your vehicles.; In your first question, you asked whether the joint connecting a piec of metal that is attached to a body pillar and which is covered by the exterior body panels is a joint regulated by Standard No. 221. The standard regulates a 'body panel joint' which is defined as 'the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component,....' 'Body panel' is defined as 'a body component...used to enclose the bus' occupant space.' The piece of metal to which you refer becomes a part of the pillar and serves no purpose in enclosing occupant space. Therefore, the joint connecting these two body members is not a body panel joint and is not subject to the standard.; In your second question, you ask whether a hood latch system ca utilize two pin-type latches, one on each side of the hood, to comply with Standard No. 113. The standard specifically permits the use of two hood latch systems. The use of these two distinct pins would appear to comply with the requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3864OpenMr. Ken Pomer, President, Premier Crown Corp., P.O. Box 30576, Umstead Industrial Park, Raleigh, NC 27622; Mr. Ken Pomer President Premier Crown Corp. P.O. Box 30576 Umstead Industrial Park Raleigh NC 27622; Dear Mr. Pomer: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, as it relates to one of the Premier helmet models. You enclosed a photograph of the helmet which shows that the helmet has a visor in the front. You state that the visor is an integral part of the polycarbonate helmet shell and ask if this helmet complies with the standard.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*. (as amended) (the Act). Certification that an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a motorcycle helmet, complies with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is the obligation of the manufacturer under section 114 of the Act. For this reason, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not state in advance whether a helmet complies with the standard. The agency's determination of compliance occurs only in the context of an enforcement action.; This office has reviewed the photograph of the Premier helmet regardin the visor and notes that paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 218 requires that: 'The brow opening of the helmet shall be at least 1 inch above all points in the basic plane that are within the angles of peripheral vision (see Figure 3).' The intent of this provision is to give the helmet user an unobstructed view. Therefore, if the lowest point, or the tip, of the visor is at least one inch above the basic plane, as shown in Figure 2 of the standard, the helmet should meet the requirements of this provision.; A copy of 49 CFR Part 556, *Exemption for Inconsequential Defect o Noncompliance, is enclosed for your information, if you decide to petition the NHTSA regarding the inconsequentiality of a noncompliance.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1859OpenMr. Cleatis Mitchell, State Representative, District No. 52, House of Representatives, Salem, OR 97310; Mr. Cleatis Mitchell State Representative District No. 52 House of Representatives Salem OR 97310; Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is in response to your letter of March 3, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from Mr. Jim Lee Martin, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal Bumper Standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1970 (sic) model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two ageny-sponsore (sic) studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Martin has directed his comments to what he believes to be proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face (plastic) systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4071OpenMr. D. Black, Director, U.S. Engineering, Alfa Romeo, Inc., 250 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. D. Black Director U.S. Engineering Alfa Romeo Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associat Administrator for Rulemaking, requesting an interpretation of Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. You stated that you plan to begin production of a 1987 carline in March 1986. This particular carline has been selected as one that will be subject to the requirements of Part 541. However, Part 541 does not become effective until April 24, 1986. You stated your belief that the introduction of the 1987 vehicles in that carline before the effective date of Part 541 means that none of the 1987 vehicles in that carline will be required to comply with Part 541, but that the 1988 vehicles would be required to comply. Your belief is essentially correct.; As you noted, the effective date for Part 541 is April 24, 1986. Thi effective date means that Part 541 applies to all selected carlines beginning with the 1987 model year. However, the legislative history for Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 *et seq*.), which Title requires that Part 541 be promulgated, expressly states: 'The theft prevention standard cannot apply to a car in the middle of the model year.' H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 11 (1984).; For the purposes of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, NHTSA believe that the model year for a carline begins on the day on which a vehicle in that carline is introduced into commerce in the United States. In your case, since these cares are manufactured outside of the United States, the start of production does *not* constitute an introduction into commerce in the United States. The cars would be considered to be introduced into commerce in the United States when the first vehicle is *imported* into the customs territory of the United States.; Assuming that one of the 1987 vehicles in this carline is imported, an thus introduced into commerce, before April 24, 1986 (the effective date for Part 541), the 1987 model year for that carline would have begun prior to the effective date of the theft prevention standard. Obviously, the requirements of any standard do not apply before the effective date. Given the clear expression of Congressional intent that this theft prevention standard cannot apply to a carline in the middle of its model year, NHTSA concludes that a 1987 model year version of a carline introduced into commerce before the effective date of the theft prevention standard is not subject to the requirements of the theft prevention standard for the 1987 model year. It would, of course, be subject to the requirements for the 1988 model year.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1789OpenMr. George R. Semark, Manager, Vehicle Safety Activities, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 2885 St. Johns Avenue, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. George R. Semark Manager Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 2885 St. Johns Avenue Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Semark: This is in reply to your letter of January 16, 1975, asking whether yo must install clearance lamps on a vehicle's rear fenders, rather than its body, in order to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Table II of Standard No. 108 requires red clearance lamps to be 'on th rear, to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . and as near the top as practicable.' Paragraph S4.3.1.1 requires clearance lamps to be located so as to meet the visibility requirements of SAE Standard J592e, which includes test points at 45 degrees inboard. Therefore, the location of clearance lamps as shown on the TBEA sheet you enclosed conforms to the intent of the standard. Clearance lamps mounted near the top and outer extremities of a body, as in your diagrams, do sufficiently indicate overall width for purposes of safety, even though the actual vehicle width at the fender may be somewhat greater.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Asst. Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1273OpenMr. Virgil V. Stanciu, Executive Vice President, Falcon Enterprises, Inc., 3960 South Marginal Road, Cleveland, OH 44114; Mr. Virgil V. Stanciu Executive Vice President Falcon Enterprises Inc. 3960 South Marginal Road Cleveland OH 44114; Dear Mr. Stanciu: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1973, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, 'Motorcycle Helmets.' You raise several questions in your letter which are restated below.; >>>1. 'It is our understanding that we are not required to seek o secure prior DOT approval to market helmets manufactured after March 1, 1974, but that we must satisfy ourselves that our product meets this specification. Is this correct?'; Yes. 2. 'It is also our understanding the DOT does not issue any approval o certification even if we present documents of compliance. Is this correct?'; Yes. 3. 'We are interested in your comments as far as the disposition o existing inventory of helmets manufactured prior to March 1, 1974, but available for retail sale following March 1, 1974.'; The standard will apply only to helmets manufactured on or after it effective date, it will not apply to helmets manufactured before its effective date but sold to the public after that date. Accordingly, you will be free to sell after the standard's effective date any helmets you have in stock which were manufactured before the standard's effective date.; 4. 'What mechanism do you foresee being set up to police our industr to assure the public of continued compliance?'; 5. 'In the event that a helmet is tested by DOT and found to b deficient with respect to the DOT requirements, we would like to know what action would be taken by DOT?'; Once any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard becomes effective violations of such regulations are federally enforced. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) purchases items covered by the standard in the open market, and tests them for compliance. Under section 109(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, whoever violates any regulation issued under the Act, including selling nonconforming equipment, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation to a maximum of not more than $400,000 for any related series of such violations.; 6. 'Presently our helmets are marketed as universal size with sizin bands included. Per section 5.6.1 (labeling), we are required to show the size of the helmet. We are somewhat at a loss as to which size we would show, since the helmet can be either small, medium, or large at the selection of the purchaser. Would you please comment?'; If the size of a helmet is adjustable, then the range of sizes withi which it can be adjusted must be given.; 7. 'Would you please furnish us with the method and the name of th person or persons whom we would communicate with for specific interpretation of the individual sections of this standard?'; Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safet Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; 8. 'Could you provide us with a list of DOT approved testing agencies?' Neither the DOT nor the NHTSA certify or approve testing agencies. Th basis upon which a manufacturer determines whether his product conforms to a standard is a matter within his own discretion.; 9. 'Does this standard supersede and set aside the current Stat regulations pertaining to motorcycle helmets?'; The motorcycle helmet standard is a comprehensive regulation coverin all relevant aspects of safety performance. Any State or local requirements for the design or performance of motorcycle helmets must be identical to the requirements of the Federal standard when that standard becomes effective. Any differing requirements will be void.<<<; A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which includes the referenced sections you are concerned about, and a copy of the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51 are enclosed in accordance with your request.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4421OpenLawrence C. Bourbeau, Jr., Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Fruehauf Corporation, Law Department, 10900 Harper Avenue, P.O. Box 238, Detroit, MI 48232; Lawrence C. Bourbeau Jr. Esq. Assistant General Counsel Fruehauf Corporation Law Department 10900 Harper Avenue P.O. Box 238 Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Bourbeau: This letter responds to your earlier inquiry where you ask whethe NHTSA would object to your Company's changing 'its model year designation from September 1 to July 1.' I apologize for the delay in responding.; Standard 115, *Vehicle Identification Number-Basic Requirements* directs vehicle manufacturers to place a discrete identifying number (VIN) on each vehicle. Title 49 CFR Part 565, *VIN-Content Requirements*, states that a VIN must include a character indicating the manufacturer's designated model year. Neither Standard 115 nor Part 565 prohibits your company from changing the model year in the manner you suggest. Therefore, such a change does not violate our regulations.; We note that this change apparently concerns model year as a marketin concept. The Federal Trade Commission has published guidelines concerning model year as a commercial concept, and you may wish to contact the Commission for whatever assistance it may provide. I hope you find this information helpful.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0931OpenJerome Palisi, Highway Safety Management Specialist, Region II; Jerome Palisi Highway Safety Management Specialist Region II; Subject: Your memorandum of November 9, 1972, regarding th Certification regulation.; In your memorandum of November 9 you discuss a statement in a TBE Bulletin, brought to your attention by Mr. Edward Bristol of the Bristol=Donald Company, Newark, New Jersey, which Mr. Bristol interprets as holding a manufacturer responsible for a safety defect if an operator overloads a vehicle, exceeding its GVWR and GAWR's. You ask us to forward you copies of any correspondence with Mr. Bristol or TBEA regarding this matter.; We have attached a recent letter to TBEA, dated November 22, 1972 which clarifies our position, and should alleviate Mr. Bristol's concern. Our position on this issue has been that a manufacturer who properly derives his GVWR and GAWR cannot be held responsible for noncompliance with the certification regulations or a safety defect.; From: Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1623OpenMr. J. W. Boyd, Manager, Government & Industry, Tech. Relations, Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corporation, P. O. Box 1109, Buffalo, NY 14240; Mr. J. W. Boyd Manager Government & Industry Tech. Relations Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corporation P. O. Box 1109 Buffalo NY 14240; Dear Mr. Boyd: This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1974, askin several questions relating to our tire identification regulation as it applies to Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation (England).; When tires are manufactured for a brand name owner, as they will be i your case, you are correct in saying the first grouping in the identification number must contain the manufacturer's identification (DD, in your case) and the third grouping must contain up to four letters designating the brand name owner. Pursuant to section 574.5(c) you must maintain a detailed record of the brand name owner code used.; Pursuant to section 574.7(c), the brand name owner must maintain th information required by section 574.7 of the regulation. Therefore, no agreement between Dunlop and Armstrong is necessary.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting 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.