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: aiam4615OpenCONFIDENTIAL; CONFIDENTIAL; "Dear CONFIDENTIAL: This is in reply to your letter of June 30, l989 to John Donaldson of this Office titled 'Request for Interpretation', submitted on behalf of your client. You request 'that all identifying references to myself, my firm and my client in this letter and the responsive letter of interpretation' be deleted. Your request is granted on the basis that it relates to confidential business information and may be withheld under applicable Departmental regulations, 49 CFR Part 512. You describe a lamp system as follows: 'The product is a headlamp consisting of a plastic lens and reflector, arc tubes (two each for high and low beam) and electronics for instant start and re-start of the headlamps as well as management of the operating current. A 12 volt connection is supplied for connection of vehicle line voltage'. You have asked for a letter 'confirming' that this lamp system is designed to conform to the integral beam headlamp requirements of paragraph S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, 'subject only to compliance with the appropriate photometric requirements of FMVSS l08.' A headlighting system of the nature described must be designed to conform to all the pertinent requirements of S5.5, S7.1, S7.2, and S7.7, as well as S7.4, including mechanical aim and environmental requirements. However, since this headlamp does not use filaments for converting the electrical energy to light energy, certain configurations of such systems may not conform, because some requirements are predicated upon the existence of filaments (e.g., S5.5.9 and S7.4(f)). If the headlamp you describe meets all requirements, then it would appear to be an integral beam headlighting system designed to conform to S7.4. Whether the headlamp in fact meets those requirements is for the lamp manufacturer to determine, as it must assure the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed that he may certify compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. l08. Further, the headlamp manufacturer itself must certify compliance of replacement equipment. If the headlamp is incompatible with these requirements and cannot meet them, then it would not appear to be an integral beam system. In that case, rulemaking would be required to accommodate it within the framework of Standard No. l08. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /"; |
|
ID: aiam1047OpenMr. Norman E. Salzman, General Manager, The Fairmount Press, P.O. Box 3, Bronx, NY 10453; Mr. Norman E. Salzman General Manager The Fairmount Press P.O. Box 3 Bronx NY 10453; Dear Mr. Salzman: This will serve to confirm the opinion you received by phone on Marc 16, 1973, concerning the content of the disclosure statement required by 49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements.; You had previously asked, by letter dated February 28, 1973, whether State odometer disclosure form, such as that required by New York, could be used to satisfy the Federal requirement. Our reply was that it could be used, and you have now asked what information must be added to satisfy the Federal requirements.; As we indicated by phone, the item that must be added to the New Yor form is the reference to the Federal remedy required by section 580.4. This reference consists of two elements: a citation to the Federal law, and a statement that failure to provide accurate information may result in civil liability. Each of these elements is contained in the parenthetical statement that introduces section 580.6, and you may therefore use the section 580.6 statement to conform the New York forms to Federal practice.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4245OpenMr. Jeffrey S. Jensen, 16722 23rd Ave. S.E., Bothell, WA 98012; Mr. Jeffrey S. Jensen 16722 23rd Ave. S.E. Bothell WA 98012; Dear Mr. Jensen: Your letter of September 10, 1986, has been forwarded to this offic for reply. You have devised a way 'to inscribe lettering on the inside of car & truck taillights so that when the brakes are applied the lettering is seen.' You asked if there are any laws that apply to this concept.; Because you wish to produce this concept we shall consider it as bot original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer, and as equipment available in the aftermarket, for purchase by a vehicle owner. The Federal regulation governing vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. It requires a manufacturer to produce vehicles with certain specified lighting devices meeting specific requirements. Further, under it, additional lighting devices and other motor vehicle equipment are permissible provided they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The requirements for stop lamps (you called them 'tail lights', but taillamps are the rear lights that are on when the headlamps are on, and are not brake activated) are those of SAE Standard J586c, August 1970. It specifies photometric requirements to be met at specific test points, and a minimum effective projected luminous lens area for lamps.; With respect to compliance with the stop lamp requirements of Standar No. 108, the lettering must not prevent the lamp from meeting photometrics at the applicable test points, or from complying with the minimum area requirements. As to whether the concept would nevertheless impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps, this is a decision to be made by the vehicle manufacturer, though it is subject to review by this agency. Anything that distracts the observer of a stop lamp from instantaneously perceiving its message could be considered an impairment.; As an aftermarket device, it is not subject to Standard No. 108, bu only to the restriction imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that manufacturers, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses must not render inoperative in whole or in part devices such as stop lamps that are installed as original safety equipment. If your device created a noncompliance in the stop lamp, or impaired the effectiveness of it, we would consider this the equivalent of rendering the stop lamp partially inoperative.; Your concept would also be subject to the laws of any State in which device embodying it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you as to these laws, but you must consider them as well.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3580OpenMr. Ron Gustafson, Furudals Buruks Kursinternat, 790 70 FURUDUAL Sweden; Mr. Ron Gustafson Furudals Buruks Kursinternat 790 70 FURUDUAL Sweden; Dear Mr. Gustafson: This responds to your letter of June 28, 1982, asking abou requirements applicable to child restraints sold in the United States as well as any necessary permits or licenses. You also asked about any U.S. testing organizations, procedures or standards for child restraints.; All child restraints sold in the U.S. must conform with the minimu performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. The standard also sets out the test procedures that are used to measure the performance of child restraints. There are no other performance requirements or test procedures applicable to child restraints. I am enclosing a copy of the standard.; You are not required to obtain a permit or license from this agenc prior to selling a child restraint in the U.S., nor are you required to obtain approval from any U.S. testing organization. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are required by Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*, of our regulation to submit certain identifying information to the agency. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566.; In addition,m you would be required by the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1392 *et seq.*) to certify that your child restraint complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under the Act, you would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign for any safety-related defect in your product. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, which defines your responsibilities as a manufacturer.; If you have any further question, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0206OpenMr. A. J. Macho, Administrative Assistant, Holan, Division of Ohio Brass Company, 4100 W. 150th Street, Cleveland, OH 44135; Mr. A. J. Macho Administrative Assistant Holan Division of Ohio Brass Company 4100 W. 150th Street Cleveland OH 44135; Dear Mr. Macho: This is in reply to your letter of January 19, 1970, in which you aske whether section 371.13, Labeling of Chassis-Cabs, requires chassis-cab manufacturers to indicate the date of manufacture by month, day and year, or whether month and year alone is sufficient.; The wording of the section is 'date of manufacture', without furthe elaboration. While in most contexts this phrase refers to a specific day, the present scheme of labeling and certification leads us to the conclusion that the month and year will be sufficient to satisfy the intent of the regulation.; The main regulator purpose of the requirement is to make it clear whic standards are applicable to the chassis cab and therefore to the complete vehicle under our ruling. A similar purpose is fulfilled by the date-of-manufacture requirement in the Certification Regulations, 49 CFR Part 367, and there the requirement is explicitly stated as month and year only. It is the practice of the National Highway Safety Bureau to make standards effective on the first day of a month, and therefore it is unnecessary to require manufacturers to incur the extra expense of a daily label change.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam5004OpenMr. Nathan W. Randall 14195 Westchester Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80921; Mr. Nathan W. Randall 14195 Westchester Drive Colorado Springs CO 80921; "Dear Mr. Randall: This responds to your letter of March 2, 1992 asking for confirmation that you will be a manufacturer of 'used' motor vehicles under the fact situation that you outlined and a previous interpretation of this agency. You intend to assemble replica vehicles which will incorporate new items of motor vehicle equipment except for 'previously used engine/transmission/drive axle/gearing combinations.' Because 'its running gear is not new', you believe that we would consider your vehicle 'as 'used' even thought its body and chassis are previously unused.' In support you cite a l980 interpretation of this Office under which the then Chief Counsel stated that 'the agency tends to view as 'used' a motor vehicle whose running gear is not new even though its body and chassis may be previously unused.' In that instance, the vehicle for which the interpretation was given was to be constructed from new parts except for the front suspension and axle, engine, and transmission. Your letter has provided an opportunity for the agency to review its position on motor vehicles constructed from a mixture of old and new parts. When the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was enacted in 1966, such motor vehicles were primarily 'kit cars.' A 'kit car' in those days consisted usually of a new body placed upon the chassis of an older Volkswagen from which the original body had been removed. The resulting assemblage generally retained the title of the original vehicle. The agency termed this type of vehicle a 'used' vehicle, and stated that the assemblage did not have to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to vehicles at the time they are manufactured. The primary reason for this interpretation was the realization that it would be impracticable, if not impossible, for a motor vehicle to meet all contemporary Federal motor vehicle safety standards if that vehicle used a chassis that was manufactured before January 1, 1968, the date that the Federal standards began to apply to motor vehicles. Over the years, the body-on-chassis type of construction has grown less, and more complex fact situations have arisen with respect to motor vehicles constructed from old and new parts. Yet with the introduction of an increasing number of new parts, including the construction of a new chassis, the agency has applied the same rationale. With respect to the use of an older engine, NHTSA realized that compliance with two specific standards could be affected by the design of the engine and its components: Standard No. 124 Accelerator Control Systems, and Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity. Your letter affords the opportunity to review that rationale. Standard No. 124 has been in effect since September 1, 1973. Standard No. 301, initially effective January 1, 1968, contains upgraded performance requirements applicable to passenger cars as of September 1, 1977. Given the substantial number of motor vehicles that have been produced in accordance with these standards, and the probability that engines from these motor vehicles, though 'used', are likely to be incorporated into the manufacture of vehicles that are otherwise new, we have concluded that this rationale no longer supports an interpretation that relieves the manufacturer of a motor vehicle that uses all new components, except engine and drive train, from the responsibility of producing and certifying a motor vehicle that complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Although you are correct that your situation appears analogous to the one in the 1980 letter, the passage of time has rendered that opinion untenable today. In a somewhat similar situation, on April 22, 1991, we informed Memory Motors, a replica manufacturer, that its product would be considered a 'new' vehicle for purpose of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards where the previously used chassis was retained in modified form, and the only used components retained included the rear axle assembly and front end components. As a small volume manufacturer of new motor vehicles, however, under 49 CFR Part 555 you become eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for a period of up to three years if immediate compliance with the standard(s) would create substantial economic hardship. Although NHTSA does not grant blanket exemptions from the standards, it is sympathetic to small manufacturers who appear to have attempted in good faith to meet the standards but whose economic circumstances do not permit total compliance before manufacture of the vehicle is scheduled to commence. If you are interested in pursuing this possibility, we shall be pleased to advise you accordingly. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1944OpenMr. John S. Hickman, President, Hickman Hampel Corp., 4149 North Stowell Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53211; Mr. John S. Hickman President Hickman Hampel Corp. 4149 North Stowell Avenue Milwaukee WI 53211; Dear Mr. Hickman: This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1975, petitioning th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to authorize the use of tempered glass for motorcycle windscreens.; As you know, Standard No. 205 and USAS Z26.1 prohibits the use o tempered glass in motorcycle windscreens. The rationale for this requirement is that tempered glass when impacted either shatters, showering the operator with glass pellets, or crazes, thereby obscuring the operator's vision. Consequently, while there are definite safety advantages to the use of windshield wipers, it is our view that they do not offset the dangers cited above. Your petition, therefore, is denied.; We trust you will be able to find a laminated glass or acrylic whic meets both your requirements and our standard, and wish you success in this endeavor.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3979OpenKathryn L. Samuelson, Esq., Assistant City Attorney, City of Champaign, 102 North Neil Street, Champaign, IL 61820; Kathryn L. Samuelson Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Champaign 102 North Neil Street Champaign IL 61820; Dear Ms. Samuelson: Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1985, to Mr. Gary Butler of ou Region V office, which was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Federal law requires safety belts to be installed and used in several types of vehicles. I understand from conversations between my staff and Mr. Butler that your question is related to the provision of Illinois' belt use law which exempts a person operating 'a motor vehicle which is not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law' from the safety belt use requirement. I hope the following discussion is of assistance to you in your effort to ensure that the City of Champaign is in compliance with Illinois' safety belt use requirement. I believe that Illinois' law and your efforts can have an immediate and beneficial safety impact on the citizens of Champaign. I would encourage you to have all occupants of municipal vehicles wear their safety belts regardless of whether they are covered by your State's belt use requirement.; The agency has issued, under the authority of the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, which requires the installation of occupant restraints, such as safety belts, in vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires only the installation of the restraints, it does not require their use. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. I hope the following discussion explains how Standard No. 208 applies to each of the vehicles you mentioned.; You asked about fire trucks and public work trucks. Those vehicle would be governed by S4.2 or 4.3 of the standard, depending upon the gross vehicle weight rating of the truck. Police cars would be classified as passenger cars under our standard and currently would have to comply with the requirement of S4.1.2 of our standard.; The application of the standard to the remaining category of vehicle you asked about would depend upon their construction and use. All of our standards apply only to motor vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)); In interpreting this definition, the agency has said that a vehicl which cannot exceed 20 mph and has an unusual configuration which sets it apart from the rest of the traffic is not a motor vehicle and thus does not have to comply with our standards, even if it uses the public roads. These vehicles, typically, are highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers and other similar vehicles. Thus, if the snow plows, road graders and other specialized types of public work vehicles you asked about have a top speed that does not exceed 20 mph and have an unusual configuration, they would not be covered by Standard No. 208. However, if these vehicles are conventional trucks that use the public roads and have specialized work equipment mounted on them, then they would have to meet the occupant crash protection requirements set in Standard No. 208 for trucks.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0656OpenMr. Bernard Belier, U.S. Resident Engineer for CITROEN S.A., U.S. Technical Research Corporation, 801 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10017; Mr. Bernard Belier U.S. Resident Engineer for CITROEN S.A. U.S. Technical Research Corporation 801 Second Avenue New York NY 10017; Dear Mr. Belier:#The questions asked by your letter of March 10, 1072 have been compared with the applicable paragraphs of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104 and the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J942.#1.>>>The purpose of paragraphs 2.11 and 4.4.2b of J942 is to allow the testing of both manual and automatic systems using the same procedure. The wording of 4.4.2b attempts to equalize the usual cleaning cycle of each type of system. It is apparent that the manual system allowed for by 4.4.2b is one in which a single actuation, if held long enough, would put 15 cc of fluid through the nozzle. The system you described is not of this type, nor is it an automatic system. You must therefore comply with the intent of the test, which would be to operate your system for 8,000 washer cycles, as stated in paragraph 3.4. Each washer cycle is that which puts approximately 15 cc of fluid through the nozzle. Since your system is not the manual system implied in the standard, the three-second rule would not apply. Time limitation would be dictated by the 'No./min' column of Table 1 of J942, i.e., two washer cycles per minute.#Therefore, the pump and control switch you described, along with the other parts of the system, if they meet all other prescribed parameters, would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104.<<<#2.>>>An automatic pump cycling device would not be limited by the three-second rule. It would be required to meet the 'No./min' column of Table 1 of J942, i.e., two washer cycles per minute.<<<#3.>>>Paragraph 3.1 does not specify the duration of water spray, number of water sprays, or start time of wiper action. No standard wiper blade, windshield, or mechanism is specified. These are the items which, in conjunction with the washer, must produce an effective wipe/wash system.#The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned that the entire system provide good washing and wiping, and is not concerned with compliance of individual components.<<<#4.>>>'Repeatedly,' as used in paragraphs 4.2.2a and b, means the repeated application of the control device (push button, usually) which is designed to cause the water to squirt out of the nozzles. Practically, this reproduces a driver's attempts to activate the system on a cold day, not knowing if it is frozen or plugged. Upon warming up, the system must not have been damaged, and must still function after removal of the ice or plug. Without this safeguard, many systems would be rendered inoperative on the first cold day by an impatient driver.<<<#5.>>>To our knowledge, there is no reservoir size stated by Federal or State regulations.<<<#Please ask for further information, if needed.#Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2391OpenMr. Bing Johnson, 135 Jade Cove Drive, Roswell, GA 30075; Mr. Bing Johnson 135 Jade Cove Drive Roswell GA 30075; Dear Mr. Johnson: This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1976, in which you as about our regulations concerning the modification of 'vans' to make them suitable for camping. The modifications you propose to make include the installation of plumbing, water, electricity, and additional seating.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. SS1381 *et seq*.) prohibits the manufacture, offer for sale, sale, introduction in interstate commerce or importation of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. This prohibition does not apply (except for importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Under these provisions, you are responsible for the compliance of any vehicle that you modify up to and including the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale.; The manufacturer must comply with all applicable safety standard established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). His certification appears on a completed vehicle. It would be your responsibility to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards after your modifications. Under Part 567 of our regulations, you must attach a label to the vehicle that states that, as altered, the vehicle continued to conform to the standards.; From the description of the modifications you describe, it appears tha you might affect the compliance of the vehicle with the following standards: Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, and Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. It should be noted that any additional weight created by your modifications or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.; We also would point out that if you modify a Ford 'Econoline' in al probability you would change the vehicle classification from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle. This should be noted on the certification label that you attach to the vehicle.; I have enclosed an information sheet that explains where you may obtai copies of these regulations.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, 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.