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: aiam4966OpenMr. R. Wendell Moore Acting Chief Counsel for Advocacy U.S. Small Business Administration Washington, D.C. 20416; Mr. R. Wendell Moore Acting Chief Counsel for Advocacy U.S. Small Business Administration Washington D.C. 20416; "Dear Mr. Moore: Thank you for your letter concerning a petition fo rulemaking on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. While your letter did not identify the petitioner by name, your concerns relate to issues raised in Philatron International's petition to the agency. Philatron requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) remove Standard No. 106's oil resistance requirement for 'air brake tubing.' Philatron believed that there was no safety need for the requirement and that it impeded new developments in technology. The petitioner asked that the agency conduct rulemaking to remove the requirement without first providing notice or seeking public comment. Your letter supports Philatron's petition. Further, it endorses the idea of our issuing an interim final rule which removes the oil resistance requirement from the standard, and then asks us to study the merits of the requirement, pending issuance of a final rule. This agency is, of course, sensitive to the concerns of small businesses and currently is carefully reviewing its regulations pursuant to the President's recent directive. As required by NHTSA's regulation for rulemaking petitions (49 CFR Part 552), we are evaluating Philatron's petition to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the requested order would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding. Please note that NHTSA views the issues and facts relevant to the petition as being more involved than the information available to you may suggest. In addition, please note further that, if a proceeding were commenced, it would be a normal notice and comment proceeding as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. We appreciate your interest in this matter and will carefully consider your views as part of the petition evaluation process. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry"; |
|
ID: aiam3173OpenMr. Don Johnson, Professional Automotive Consultant, 25406 Malibu Road, Malibu, CA 90265; Mr. Don Johnson Professional Automotive Consultant 25406 Malibu Road Malibu CA 90265; Dear Mr. Johnson: This responds to your recent letter asking about the applicable Federa requirements for seat belts in a pickup truck that has been modified to be a convertible by removal of the top. Specifically, you ask what should be done with the shoulder portions of the seat belt assemblies in these vehicles.; I am enclosing for your information a past agency interpretatio concerning this same question. You will note that the modified pickup must be in compliance with the Federal safety standards that would have been applicable to a convertible truck at the time the pickup was originally manufactured. Since Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, permits convertible trucks to be equipped with either Type 1 belts (lap belts) or Type 2 belts (lap and shoulder combination belts) at front outboard designated seating positions, the modified pickup would only be required to have a lap belt. Of course, your client is certainly permitted to retain the lap and shoulder belt if he chooses. We cannot, however, recommend how the shoulder portion of the belt assembly should be attached to the modified vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3489OpenDarrell O. Widder, Darrell Widder Motors, Inc., Sheboygan, WS (sic) 53081; Darrell O. Widder Darrell Widder Motors Inc. Sheboygan WS (sic) 53081; Dear Mr. Widder: The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has informed the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration that at the time of the sale of a 1978 Ford vehicle identification number (VIN) 8E91T133702, Darrell Widder Motors ('the company') issued an odometer disclosure statement to the buyer which included language disclaiming the company's responsibility for the accuracy of the odometer statement.; Section 408(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac requires each automobile dealer who purchases a vehicle to obtain a complete odometer disclosure statement from the prior owner. 15 U.S.C. 1988(c). When the vehicle is resold, the dealer certifies the mileage by relying on the disclosure statement received from the prior owner. The Act, therefore, imposes an affirmative duty upon a dealer to obtain a complete odometer disclosure statement from the prior owner.; The Odometer Disclosure Requirements require the owner of a vehicle t disclose to subsequent purchasers the odometer mileage and to certify the accuracy of the odometer reading. 49 CFR 580.1. The regulations establish a specific scheme for the certification of the accuracy of the odometer reading. 49 CFR 580.4(c)(1) - (3). Where a transferor has knowledge that the odometer reading is inaccurate, the regulations require the transferor to certify that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. However, where the dealer has no reason to believe that the odometer reading is inaccurate, the dealer must certify the accuracy of the odometer reading to the subsequent purchaser. By including an absolute disclaimer on the odometer disclosure statement, the seller fails to certify the accuracy of the odometer reading as required by the Act.; Section 412 of the Act provides that any person who violates an provision of this title shall be subject to civil penalties not to exceed $1,000 for each such violation. 15 U.S.C. 1990(b). Thus, a dealer that includes a disclaimer on an odometer disclosure statement may be subject to civil penalties for failing to properly certify the accuracy of the odometer reading.; The company, therefore, should be advised that the Act requires al transferors of motor vehicles to execute and maintain proper odometer disclosure statements. This agency is charged with enforcement of these requirements and may subject the company to civil penalties for future violations.; If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call Shirle Ransom of this office (202-426- 2993).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3523OpenThomas R. Lamia, Esq., Messrs. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20007; Thomas R. Lamia Esq. Messrs. Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street N.W. Washington DC 20007; Dear Mr. Lamia: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1981, submitting petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; You have asked for rulemaking to allow the installation of a spee control device on motorcycles which you believe is presently prohibited by the requirement that the manual twist-grip throttle be self-closing after its release. You have pointed out to us that such devices are 'permitted' in motor vehicles covered by Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems*, but that no justification has been given for their 'prohibition' by Standard No. 123.; Our review of both standards indicates silence on the question of spee control devices, they are neither permitted nor prohibited by either standard. Standard No. 123's requirement that the manual throttle be self-closing after release is conceptually identical to Standard No. 124's requirement that the throttle return to idle 'whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force' (paragraphs S5.1, S5.2). We interpret this specification in Standard No. 124 as a requirement to be met under the implied condition that the speed control device is disengaged. To remove any inconsistency between the two Federal accelerator control standards, we will extend this same interpretation to Standard No. 123, speed control devices are allowable and the throttle must return to idle after manual release when the device is not engaged.; This means that your petition is denied on the basis of mootness. Suc a denial will allow us to prepare a *Federal Register* notice recording this fact and giving this interpretation a wide circulation.; Sincerely, Courtney M. Price, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking |
|
ID: aiam2762OpenMr. Donald Beyer, National Service Manager, Vespa of America Corporation, 322 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080; Mr. Donald Beyer National Service Manager Vespa of America Corporation 322 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco California 94080; Dear Mr. Beyer: This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1977, requesting a interpretation whether motorcycles with turn signals are required to have turn signal indicators. You noted that Table 2 of Standard No. 123 does not include a turn signal indicator as a motorcycle display, while there appear to be conflicts within Standard No. 108, S4.5.6 requires an indicator but SAE Standard J599c (incorporated be reference in Standard No. 108) requires and indicator only if turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.; Although S4.5.6 does require each vehicle equipped with a turn signa operating unit to have an illuminated pilot indicator, in my view a manufacturer who eliminated them in reliance upon J588c would not fail to comply with the standard if all signal lamps are readily visible to the driver.; However, We interpret 'readily visible to the driver' to mean visibl to the driver when facing forward in the driving position. Motorcycles are required to have separate turn signal lamps at or near the front, and at or near the rear of the vehicle. If the driver must turn his head to the rear to check the operation of his read turn signal lamps, the those lamps are not 'readily visible to the driver' and a turn signal indicator must be provided. While Standard No. 123 itself in Table 3 specifies requirements for identification turn signal 'control and display identification', it does not provide requirements for illumination and operation of the display in Table 2, as you noted.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3870OpenMr. Kazutoshi Kasagi, Chief Inspector, Internationally Agreed Safety Division, International Trade & Industry Inspection Institute, Ministry of International Trade & Industry, Japanese Government, 15-1 6 Chome Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. Kazutoshi Kasagi Chief Inspector Internationally Agreed Safety Division International Trade & Industry Inspection Institute Ministry of International Trade & Industry Japanese Government 15-1 6 Chome Ginza Chuo-ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Kasagi: This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1984, with respect t interpretations of the motorcycle headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and SAE J584.; You have asked 'whether other lighting systems than referred i S4.1.1.34, such as non-sealed beam head lamp with two bulbs, are acceptable or not.' The answer is yes. Non-sealed lamps meeting the requirements of SAE J584 are acceptable, including those with two bulbs, as the 'At- Focus Tests' paragraph of J584 is directed to 'light source or sources.'; Your next question is whether photometric compliance is judged when on light is on or two, including the maximum permissible output of 75,000 cd. The answer to this question depends on the design of the lamp, if it is designed so that both bulbs operate simultaneously, then photometrics including maximum output are determined with both bulbs operating. If the design is such that one bulb produces lower beam and the other the upper beam, then compliance is judged by that method of operation. Should one bulb produce both lower and upper beams and the other bulb perform an unregulated lighting function, then the photometric compliance would be judged with only the bulb used for the regulated function. In this case, however, the unregulated bulb must not interfere with the effectiveness of the headlamp. This also answers your final question about conduct of the out-of-focus test. It is to be conducted according to the design intent of the operation of the headlamp, i.e. the design function of each bulb or bulbs.; You have also asked about the geometrical center of a design when on of two bulbs (both with an upper beam and a lower beam filament apparently) is on. Operation of only one bulb alone would result in an assymetrical lighting display off the vehicle's centerline. This is permitted by S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 for the sealed beam lighting systems specified therein. Therefore, we could not logically dissapprove (sic) of it for unsealed headlighting systems. However, if only one bulb performed both the lower beam function and the upper beam, and the other bulb performed an unregulated lighting function, then the bulb providing the lower/upper beams must be located on the vehicle's vertical centerline.; If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2298OpenMr. A. Mita, Chief, Engineering Department, NSK Warner Kabushiki Kaisha, 12, Kirihara-cho, Fujisawa, Japan; Mr. A. Mita Chief Engineering Department NSK Warner Kabushiki Kaisha 12 Kirihara-cho Fujisawa Japan; Dear Mr. Mita: This responds to NSK Warner's April 12, 1976, question whether th release and buckle requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, permit the use of a latch mechanism that consists of a fixed hook over which belt webbing (presumably from the upper torso and pelvic portions of a continuous loop system) is slipped by the occupant, causing a rotating catch to close the open end of the hook and secure the webbing. Release is accomplished by depression of a push button that rotates the catch away from the open end of the hook, followed by occupant action to slip the belt webbing off the hook.; Standard No. 208 specifies that a seat belt assembly installed in motor vehicle shall have a latch mechanism [t]hat releases at a single point by a push-button action' (S7.2(c)). Release' in this context means that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. From your description of the hook mechanism, it would not disengage the two portions of belt assembly by a push-button action, because an additional action by the occupant is required. It therefore appears that such a mechanism would not conform to S7.2(c) of Standard No. 208.; Standard No. 209 specifies that A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembl shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant to permit his easy and rapid removal from the assembly' (S4.1(e)). Buckle' is defined in S4. as a quick release connector which fastens a person in a seat belt assembly.' Section S4.3 further specifies that The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall release when a force of not more than 30 pounds or 14 kilograms is applied' (S4.3(d)(1)). Release' in this standard is also interpreted to mean that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. For this reason, it appears that the described device would not comply with the listed requirements of Standard No. 209.; I trust that this answer is responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2332OpenMr. Arlen E. Riggs, Executive Engineer, Peterbilt Motors Company, 38801 Cherry Street, P.O. Box 404, Newark, CA 94560; Mr. Arlen E. Riggs Executive Engineer Peterbilt Motors Company 38801 Cherry Street P.O. Box 404 Newark CA 94560; Dear Mr. Riggs: This reponds (sic) to Peterbilt Motor Company's June 9, 1976, question whether Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, contains a permanent exclusion for 'auto transporters' and whether 'auto transporter' would include a truck-trailer vehicle combination that includes a dromedary forward of the fifth wheel to hold empty tin cans that are loaded by means of the trailer. I would like to note that I am unaware of 'discussion and interpretive rulings suggested through telephone contact' with this office.; Your interpretation is not correct that the exclusion for 'aut transporters' is permanent. Some confusion may arise from the words in S3 to describe the exclusion until September 1, 1977. The phrase 'or to any vehicle which' that appears at the end of the second sentence in S3 will shortly be modified to 'or that' to improve the structure and clarity of the sentence.; Your question whether a 'can hauler' qualifies as an 'auto transporter appears to be based on the proposed wording of this definition that was modified in final form. As defined in the standard, 'auto transporter' means:; >>>. . .a truck and a trailer designed for use in combination t transport motor vehicles, in that the towing vehicle is designed to carry cargo at a location other than the fifth wheel and to load this cargo only by means of the towed vehicle.<<<; It is clear from this definition that a 'can hauler' would not qualif as an 'auto transporter' subject to the exclusion.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5418OpenMr. Lance Tunick 1919 Mt. Zion Drive Golden, CO 80401; Mr. Lance Tunick 1919 Mt. Zion Drive Golden CO 80401; FAX 303-279-9339 Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your letter of Jul 18, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to whether the headlamp system you describe complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The system is comprised of two headlamps. In each lamp, the lower beam will be provided by a gas discharge unit and the upper beam by either one European H-1 unit, or by the H-1 together with the gas discharge unit (or, alternatively, by two gas discharge units). Both lamp units would be sealed in a 'box' so that they could not be replaced by the vehicle owner. The 'box' would also contain a third light source, mounted outboard of the lower beam gas discharge unit, to be used for purposes other than headlighting. As you note, this assemblage is an 'integral beam headlamp' as defined by S4 of Standard No. 108 because it contains light sources that are neither sealed beam nor replaceable. Thus, it must conform with the requirements of S7.4 Integral Beam Headlighting System. You have noted that the lamp, in fact, will 'comply with S7.4(a)(2) and the photometric requirements of either (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii)', which apply to two-lamp integral beam headlighting systems. In your view, the lamp meets the requirement of Table IV that the lower beams be mounted 'as far apart as practicable' because the configuration of the car body does not permit mounting the gas discharge unit any farther outboard. Further, the lamp 'would be in conformity with S7.4(b) as the lamp would have 2 light sources and the lower beam would be provided by the most outboard light source of those regulated by Standard No. 108 . . . and the upper beam would be provided by either the most inboard light source or both the gas discharge' and H-1 light sources. We concur in your conclusion that this system is permissible under Standard No. 108. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2627OpenMr. John B. White, Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept., Michelin Tire Corporation, New Hyde Park P.O., P.O. Box 3467, New York, New York 11040; Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept. Michelin Tire Corporation New Hyde Park P.O. P.O. Box 3467 New York New York 11040; Dear Mr. White: This responds to Michelin's March 23, 1977, letter concerning it February 20, 1976 petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. Your petition for reconsideration was responded to on February 7, 1977 (42 Fr 7140). By this letter, you attempt to resubmit your petition for reconsideration.; Petitions for reconsideration must be received by the agency within 3 days of the publication of a notice. Since the resubmission of your petition is untimely, it has been considered a petition for rulemaking as required by Part 553,35 of our regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 49). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.; Your petition suggests that consumers will be confused by the tir label information if the vehicle is not equipped with the tires identified on the label. The agency has determined that confusion will be minimized by the use if the optional heading 'Suitable Tire-Rim Choice.'; Your petition raises a second problem concerning tires of identica size designations manufactured by different companies. These tires may have different inflation pressures even though their sizes are identical. The agency understands that this difference in inflation pressure could result in confusion. Manufacturers, however, con avoid this problem through the use of the manufacturers's name on the tire information label as part of the tire information. Use of the manufacturer's name on the label should distinguish between two otherwise similar tires.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
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.