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: aiam2066OpenMr. Terry Brooks, Transcraft Corp. P.O. Drawer 500, Anna, Illinois 62906; Mr. Terry Brooks Transcraft Corp. P.O. Drawer 500 Anna Illinois 62906; Dear Mr. Brooks: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of September 9 1975, with Mark Schwimmer of this agency, Concerning the testing of brake hose assemblies pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74.; As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the standard does not specify the testin which you must conduct, it does specify the criteria which the assemblies must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance. While the surest way for you to be confident of compliance would be to follow the procedures in every detail, you are not legally obligated to do so. Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), requires you to assure yourself that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the procedures set out in the standard, your assemblies will meet the specified criteria. In addition, you are required to repair or replace without charge noncomplying assemblies. In the event of noncompliance or failure to remedy the noncompliance, the Act specifies a civil penalty not to exceed $1000 for each violation (and not to exceed $800,000 for any related series of violations). the exercise of due care in ensuring that the assemblies comply with the standard is a defence to an action for civil penalties for noncompliance. In such a situation, however, The Act nevertheless requires you to remedy the noncompliance.; If you manufacture brake hose assemblies and install them in vehicle which are also manufactured by you, then those assemblies are exempted by S5.2.4 of the standard from the requirement that assemblies be labeled by means of a band.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5609OpenMr. Michael A. Knappo 380-1A Hartford Road Amherst, NY 14226; Mr. Michael A. Knappo 380-1A Hartford Road Amherst NY 14226; Dear Mr. Knappo: This is in response to your letter regarding a produc that you wish to offer for sale in the near future. You have asked for information on how this product might be affected by local and national laws. According to your letter, 'Auto Ad' is a portable advertising unit that is designed with a flexible screen that can be secured to a window with suction cups. The screen is illuminated with LEDs, controlled by a key pad mounted close to the driver. The unit will run off power from the car battery through the cigarette lighter, or 'hardwired in.' The diagram you enclosed shows 'Auto Ad' mounted in the rear side window of a car and a van. While we do not have information about State or local laws, I am enclosing copies of several letters we have issued in recent years concerning the applicability of Federal law to products which appear to be similar to yours (addressed to Mr. Shawn Shieh, dated June 8, 1993, Mr. Chris Lawrence, dated May 10 and March 21, 1991, Mr. Alan Eldahr, dated August 17, 1989, and Mr. Don Benfield, dated July 8, 1985). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam2436OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, California 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento California 95804; Dear Mr. Commander Heath: This responds to your September 16, 1976, question whether any Federa regulation required that the maximum load rating assigned to a passenger car tire be reduced by approximately 10 percent in calculating its maximum load rating for use on a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), truck, or bus.; The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 120, *Tire Selectio and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*, became effective September 1, 1976, and provides for the reduced maximum load rating you describe. Section S5.1.2 of the standard provides in part that '[w]hen a tire listed in [the passenger car tire standard] is installed on a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, or trailer, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing by 1.10 before calculating the sum [that must at least equal the axle system's gross axle weight rating].' A copy of the standard, with subsequent amendments, is enclosed for your information.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4448OpenThe Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member, U.S. House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey, CA 93940; The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member U.S. House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey CA 93940; "Dear Mr. Panetta: This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Dr Courtney F. Morgan, a constituent of yours. Dr. Morgan has purchased a 1987 model year Saab. The particular version of the model he saw at the dealership was equipped with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. However, the actual car that was delivered to Dr. Morgan was equipped with automatic safety belts. Dr. Morgan feels that the automatic belts are 'hazardous and cumbersome,' and asked what he must do in order to remove the automatic belts and have manual safety belts installed in place of the automatic belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts have shown their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was 'arbitrary and capricious,' and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984. That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the proper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to save lives today at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic protection requirements are phased in during the preceding three model years, beginning with 10 percent of each manufacturer's 1987 model year cars. Each manufacturer must equip 25 percent of its 1988 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems, and 40 percent of its 1989 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, l989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded. The following prohibition appears in section 108 of the Safety Act: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' In this case, the automatic safety belts in Dr. Morgan's Saab are a 'device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Saab, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the automatic safety belts from Dr. Morgan's car. Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent Dr. Morgan himself from removing the automatic belts from his car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If Dr. Morgan were to remove the automatic belts himself and improperly install manual safety belts, he would be putting himself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash. Please thank Dr. Morgan for informing us of his views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important subject and I appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Americans. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0958OpenMr. H. Kropp, Robert Bosch GMBH, Unternehmensbereich Kraftfahrzeugausrustung, Entwicklungskoordination, 7 Stuttgard 30, Postfach 400, Germany; Mr. H. Kropp Robert Bosch GMBH Unternehmensbereich Kraftfahrzeugausrustung Entwicklungskoordination 7 Stuttgard 30 Postfach 400 Germany; Dear Mr. Kropp: This is in response to your letter of November 28, 1972, regarding th applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to battery boxes which are installed in vehicle occupant compartments.; The components that must meet the requirements of the standard ar listed in Paragraph S4.1. However, components not listed specifically in Paragraph S4.1, such as battery boxes, will nevertheless be covered to the extent that they are made of materials 'that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash'.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2965OpenMr. Paul Utans, Subaru of America, Inc., 7040 Central Highway, Pennesauken, (sic) NJ 08109; Mr. Paul Utans Subaru of America Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennesauken (sic) NJ 08109; Dear Mr. Utans:#I regret the delay in responding to your September 12 1978, letter requesting interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. The responses to your specific questions regarding the compliance of your prototype monitor of vehicle systems are as follows:#1. When there is no problem with the vehicle systems included in the monitor, only the outline of a car is visible. The displays for items such as oil and electrical charge would not be illuminated. You asked if the monitor in its 'no problem' model would comply with FMVSS 101-80. The answer is yes. There is no requirement that the displays be continuously illuminated.#2. On the monitor, the high beam symbol would be oriented so that it pointed upward. You asked whether this complies with the standard even though the symbol appears in Table 2 of the standard pointing to the left. The answer is yes. The requirement is section 5.2.3 that the display symbol appear preceptually (sic) upright to the driver was not intended to apply to the situation in which the symbol is used in conjunction with a car diagram of the type in your monitor. In such situations, it would be more confusing to place the symbol in the upright position than to orient the symbol so that it bears the same relationship to the diagram as the symbolized equipment does to the actual vehicle.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3677OpenMr. R. Leigh Deumler, Lane & Mittendorff, 26 Broadway, New York, NY 10004; Mr. R. Leigh Deumler Lane & Mittendorff 26 Broadway New York NY 10004; Dear Mr. Deumler: This is in response to your letter of March 7, 1983 requesting th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) interpretation as to whether the 'transferor' of a motor vehicle may issue a power of attorney to a person, presently in possession of the vehicle, for the purpose of executing the odometer statement on behalf of the owner, as required by the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1988) and the regulations implementing the same (49 CFR Part 590 (sic)).; Assuming that the power of attorney conforms with all loca requirements NHTSA finds that nothing in the Act or in the regulations thereunder forbids an authorized agent from executing an odometer disclosure statement on behalf of the transferor.; The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and its implementin regulations require that each transferor of a motor vehicle, before executing any transfer of ownership document, furnish to the transferee a signed written statement containing certain information. The 'transferor' is defined by the regulations as 'any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest.' Neither the regulations nor the Act address the question of whether an agent may be authorized (through a power of attorney or otherwise) to execute the odometer statement on the transferor's behalf.; The purpose of these requirements, as stated in 49 CFR 580.2, is t provide each purchaser of a motor vehicle with odometer information to assist him in determining the vehicle's condition and value, and to preserve records that are needed for the proper investigation, and the adjudication, or other disposition, of possible violations of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. The execution of an odometer disclosure statement by a person other than the transferor will not derogate the purpose of the Act to preserve records. Records will be created and preserved whether the transferor or his agent executes the statement. Further, it is NHTSA's opinion that as long as the transferor continues to owe a duty to disclose odometer information (under S1988), and continues to be liable (under SS1988 and 1989) for false or fraudulent representations, and for failures to disclose odometer information, the purpose of the Act, to provide each purchaser of a motor vehicle with that information, will be accomplished.; A number of cases have been decided with respect to this issue. The have determined that, since S1988 establishes requirements and creates liability for only the 'transferor', the agent who, on behalf of the transferor, makes a fraudulent disclosure of, or fails to disclose, odometer information is not liable. The transferor, however, does remain liable. *McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc.,* 633 F2d 226 (1st Cir. 1980), *Duval v. Midwest Auto City, Inc., et al.,* 578 F2d 721 (8th Cir. 1978), *Romans v. Swets Motors, Inc.,* 428 F.Supp. 106 (E.D.Wisc. 1977), *Coulbourne v. Rollins Auto Leasing Corporation and Watson*, 392 F.Supp. 1198 (D.Del. 1975). Since the transferor remains subject to the requirements of the Act and implementing regulations and liable for failure to comply, the purpose for which the odometer disclosure law was enacted is satisfied.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4018OpenNorman Friberg, P.E., Manager, Product Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Norman Friberg P.E. Manager Product Compliance Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Friberg: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated June 27, 1985 for a determination that a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; Paragraph S4.3 of the standard requires that a specified placard sho the recommended tire size designation. Volvo has provided labels on approximately 3,200 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state '185/65R15' but the correct information is '185/70R15.' However, Volvo intends to mail correct placards 'to owners of all affected vehicles.'; By providing the corrective placard, Volvo will remedy th noncompliance. Because the noncompliance will no longer exist, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moot. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Volvo will provide owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek re-notice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.; The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and d not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.; Our records indicate that Volvo is in technical noncompliance with 4 CFR Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*, by failing to file a report within 5 days of its determination of the existence of the noncompliances. We will, however, treat the submission of information in your petition as a Part 573 report. Part 573 also requires 6 quarterly reports on the progress of recall campaigns. In your situation, the campaign will be accomplished in a single mailing. We ask that you furnish the agency with a report of the number of letters sent and the number of letters returned as undeliverable in lieu of the Part 573 quarterly reports.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3227OpenMr. Brian O'Meara, President & General Manager, O'Meara Ford Center, 400 West 104th Avenue, Denver, CO 80234; Mr. Brian O'Meara President & General Manager O'Meara Ford Center 400 West 104th Avenue Denver CO 80234; Dear Mr. O'Meara: This responds to your February 26, 1980, letter asking about the prope certification for a Ford Mustang that has been converted to a convertible. You ask what certification is required before you would be permitted to sell such a vehicle.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires al manufacturers of motor vehicles to certify that their vehicles comply with Federal safety standards prior to first sale. In the case of the vehicle that you mention, Ford Motor Company would have certified it when it was sold to the company that converted it to a convertible. Ford's certification label is located on the driver's door or pillar post.; The company that converted the vehicle, Tomaso of America, i responsible for putting its own label on the vehicle indicating that as altered the vehicle continues to comply with the applicable Federal safety standards. The requirements for alterers' labels are located in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. Tomaso's label should also be located on the vehicle in the same area as Ford's.; If both of the labels are on the vehicle, it is legal for you to sel it. If either of the labels is missing from the vehicle, then the vehicle is not correctly certified and may be in noncompliance with the safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2820OpenMr. Wayne C. Parsil, Minnesota Claims Services, 402 South Cedar Lake Road, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405; Mr. Wayne C. Parsil Minnesota Claims Services 402 South Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis Minnesota 55405; Dear Mr. Parsil: This responds to your inquiry concerning the steering wheel system on 1972 Plymouth Cricket. You ask whether Federal safety standards permitted non-collapsible steering columns on that vehicle model, whether the steering columns met all safety standards, and whether the vehicle manufacturer was exempted from Federal safety standards on the 1972 Plymouth Cricket because of hardship.; Federal Motor Vehicle SAfety Standard No. 203, *Impact Protection fo the Driver from the Steering Control System* (49 CFR 571.203), became effective for all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Therefore, a 1972 Plymouth Cricket had to meet the performance requirements specified in that standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 203 for your information, and you should note that the standard does not specifically require 'collapsible steering columns. Rather, the standard limits the force loads that can be imparted by the steering column during a dynamic impact test.; Under Federal motor vehicle safety regulations, manufacturers ar required to determine for themselves that their vehicles are in compliance and to certify the vehicles as being in compliance. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration only conducts compliance tests on a 'spot-check' basis for purposes of enforcement. Therefore, I cannot tell you whether the particular Plymouth with which you are interested was in fact in compliance with all safety standards. I can tell you that the agency has not made any determinations that the 1972 Plymouth Crickets failed to comply with Safety Standard No. 203.; Regarding your final question, no exemption from Standard No. 203 wa granted for the 1972 Plymouth Cricket.; please contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.