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: aiam0494OpenDr. J. G. Lundholm, Jr., 8106 Post Oak Road, Rockville, MD 20854; Dr. J. G. Lundholm Jr. 8106 Post Oak Road Rockville MD 20854; Dear Dr. Lundholm: Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1971, to Secretary Volpe, i reference to our occupant crash protection program.; I am enclosing a copy of the proposed amendment to Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which would allow an ignition interlock system as an option to front seat passive systems from August 15, 1973, to August 15, 1975. I am also enclosing an explanatory press release.; In regard to your question number one, we require that the interloc system be sequentially linked to the seat switch, such that a person would have to fasten the belt, after being seated, each time he attempted to start the car.; With regard to your questions numbers two and three, the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 permits us to establish standards which serve as guides for individual state safety programs. It is possible for the states to undertake such anti-tampering regulations. We will certainly be considering such actions once we determine the magnitude and effect of tampering in vehicles which have been produced to meet the Federal standards.; In regard to your question number four, I am not presently aware of an plans by insurance companies to require seat/shoulder belt usage in order to be reimbursed for collision coverage in case of an accident.; You are certainly correct in that the present shoulder belt design often make it difficult to have a properly adjusted shoulder belt and still be able to have a reasonable degree of freedom of movement during normal vehicle operation. We are attacking this problem on two fronts. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination--Passenger Cars, requires that most critical controls, such as the steering wheel, headlamp switch, etc., be within reach by a person restrained by a lap and shoulder belt system. The present version of this standard does not include the parking brake or its release mechanism. The second action, which we are taking, is to propose a requirement that shoulder belt systems in cars manufactured after August 15, 1973, shall be equipped with inertia reel retractors that allow freedom of movement except in a crash situation.; I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your intense interest in ou motor vehicle safety programs. It is very helpful to our efforts to improve highway safety when concerned citizens, such as yourself, take the time to bring their comments and suggestions to our attention.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0181OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P. O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P. O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: Thank you for your letter of September 10, 1969, concerning lamp bulb to be used in photometric tests.; In answer to your first question, photometric testing of lamps usin 1034 and 1157 bulbs should be conducted with the minor filament operating at four mean spherical candlepower to determine conformance to SAE J573b. Bulbs utilizing three candlepower minor filaments would not be in conformance with SAE J573b, however, as provided by the enclosed interpretation issued August 12, 1968, on bulbs and bulb sockets, such bulbs may be used in lamp assemblies conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In accordance with the interpretation, such bulbs should be treated as special bulbs and should be tested at the three candlepower rating.; In answer to your second question, if photometric tests are conducte with a bulb operated at either three or four mean spherical candlepower ratings, it is not acceptable to interpolate (or extrapolate) the data to determine acceptability of the lamp in the other bulb rating.; Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director |
|
ID: aiam2446OpenMr. Galileo Buzzi-Ferraris, Technical Manager, Pirelli Tire Corporation, 600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016; Mr. Galileo Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager Pirelli Tire Corporation 600 Third Avenue New York New York 10016; Dear Mr. Buzzi-Ferraris: This is in response to your November 1, 1976, letter to Mark Schwimme of my staff, concerning the marking 'V1' on passenger car tires.; The marking 'V1' is not required by any Federal statute, motor vehicl safety standard, or other regulation to appear on the sidewall of passenger car tires. Furthermore, Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides in pertinent part:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State of political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either o establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.<<<; This provision, considered with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 109, prohibits any State from imposing any safety labeling requirements for passenger car tires other than those contained in that standard. Any differing safety labeling requirements, including the 'V1' that you have mentioned, are thus preempted and void.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5383OpenMr. Michael S. Marczynski Sales Representative Anita's Auto World 529 S. Charles Street Lansing, MI 48912; Mr. Michael S. Marczynski Sales Representative Anita's Auto World 529 S. Charles Street Lansing MI 48912; "Dear Mr. Marczynski: This responds to your letter in which you aske whether it would be legal for you to install after-market roll pans and convertible tops on light duty pick- up trucks. I apologize for the delay in our response. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by a section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act which provides: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In general, this provision prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from a hard-top to a convertible) do not violate the 'render inoperative' prohibition as long as the converted vehicle complies with the safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards which have different requirements for convertible trucks: Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. An explanation of these differences follows. Standard No. 205 Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Material used in a convertible top may be subject to this standard. Standard No. 208 Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. These requirements differ depending on gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and year of manufacture. The requirements for hard-top and convertible vehicles manufactured in the same year may also differ. Standard No. 216 Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, are required to comply with Standard No. 216. However, Standard No. 216 does not apply to convertibles. Standard No. 302 Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Material used in a convertible top may be subject to this standard. In summary, you are responsible for ensuring that, in the process of installing a roll pan or convertible top, you do not remove, disable, or otherwise 'render inoperative' any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, to the extent that a different standard is applicable to convertibles, modifications which result in the vehicle complying with the standard that applied to convertibles are permitted. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5229OpenMr. David Degenstein Manager, Product Safety & Compliance Kenworth Truck Company P. O. Box 1000 Kirkland, WA 98083-1000; Mr. David Degenstein Manager Product Safety & Compliance Kenworth Truck Company P. O. Box 1000 Kirkland WA 98083-1000; "Dear Mr. Degenstein: This responds to your request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether a control for an automatic vehicle speed system (also known as a cruise control) would meet the location requirement of Standard No. 101, and whether the control must be illuminated. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes. Your letter explained that your company is developing a vehicle that 'will locate a cruise control switch in a console that is attached to the manual transmission shift lever, adjacent to the shift knob.' You state that the switches on the console will be 'operable by the driver.' You believe that because the cruise control console's location is similar to that of a switch located on the vehicle floor console, illumination of the cruise control is not necessary. Your first question asks whether the proposed location of the cruise control would meet Standard No. 101. S5.1 of Standard No. 101 specifies that each control listed in S5.1 'that is furnished' must be operable by the driver. S5.1 lists, under the heading of 'hand operated control,' the automatic vehicle speed system (i.e., the cruise control). Thus, under S5.1, a furnished hand operated cruise control must be operable by the driver. It appears from your letter that the switches on the cruise control console are operable by the driver. Two photographs you enclosed show the cruise control as mounted on the manual transmission shift lever, and as located so close to the driver's seat as to be almost touching it. Accordingly, the proposed location of the cruise control console would be permitted by Standard No. 101. Your second question asks whether your proposed cruise control would be subject to the illumination requirements of S5.3 of Standard No. 101. S5.3.1 sets requirements concerning controls which must be illuminated. It provides that (except for hand operated controls mounted on the floor), any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word 'yes' in column 4, 'Illumination,' shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. The automatic vehicle speed control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and is accompanied by 'yes' in column 4. Therefore, Standard No. 101 specifies that the cruise control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated, unless it is otherwise excepted in S5.3.1. As explained below, your cruise control would not be excepted. You believe that the control is akin to being 'mounted on the floor console' and thus excluded from S5.3.1's illumination requirements. We disagree. The dictionary definitions of 'mount' include 'to place on something raised,' and 'to place, fix, or fasten on or in the proper support, backing, etc. for the required purpose.' (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Both definitions support the view that the cruise control console is 'mounted' on the transmission shift lever, not the floor. The console is placed on the transmission shift lever (i.e., 'something raised'), and is 'place(d), fix(ed) or fasten(ed)' on the transmission shift lever for the 'required purpose' of being operable by hand. The console with the cruise control would not be operable by hand if the console were 'mounted' on the floor. Since the cruise control console is mounted on the manual transmission shift lever, not on the floor, it is not excluded by S5.3.1 from the illumination requirements. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2016OpenWilliam S. Hart, Esq., Harney, Bambic & Moore, Attorneys at Law, 650 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90017; William S. Hart Esq. Harney Bambic & Moore Attorneys at Law 650 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles California 90017; Dear Mr. Hart: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of April 5, 1975 requesting an interpretation of Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; Section 202 does not directly require any motor vehicle to be equippe with appropriate tires. It instructs this agency to establish, by regulation, motor vehicle safety standards which will in turn require vehicles to be so equipped. Standard No. 110, *Tire selection and rims--passenger cars*, implements this instruction with respect to passenger cars. A three-quarter-ton pick-up truck, however, would be subject instead to proposed Standard No. 120, *Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars* (copy enclosed). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects to act on that proposal in the near future.; Standards issued pursuant to section 202 do not apply to vehicles afte they have been purchased for the purpose of being rented of leased to the general public, they are applicable only to vehicles up to the point of first purchase.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0882OpenMr. Masaru Yotsuzuka, Takeda U.S.A., Inc., 400 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10022; Mr. Masaru Yotsuzuka Takeda U.S.A. Inc. 400 Park Avenue New York NY 10022; Dear Mr. Yotsuzuka: Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1972, regarding Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302.; It is correct that this standard has been in effect since September 1 1972.; The statute requires each item of motor vehicle equipment (in thi case, components specified in paragraphs S4.1 and S4.2 of FMVSS No. 302) that is produced, to conform to the applicable standards. The standard does not specify the means for sampling, and vehicle manufacturers are not restricted in their manner of testing for certification.; This agency does not publish guidelines on testing beyond the standar itself, however, Docket No. 3-3 contains a considerable amount of information and data on this standard from manufacturers, suppliers, and the interested public. This information is in the public record and may be examined during working hours in Room 5221, Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1790OpenMr. Berkley C. Sweet, Executive Vice President, Truck Body and Equipment Association, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Berkley C. Sweet Executive Vice President Truck Body and Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Sweet: This is in response to your petition of January 31, 1975, in which yo requested relief from the requirements of Standard No. 121 as it applies to final-stage manufacturers. Your petition stated that the incomplete vehicle manufacturers have not furnished advance information on the limits of the final body configurations imposed by Standard 121, in time for final-stage manufacturers to design and prepare to manufacture conforming bodies after the standard goes into effect on March 1.; The NHTSA recognizes the difficulties posed by this lack of informatio for final-stage manufacturers. Of course, completed vehicles are required to conform only to standards in effect on the date of completion of the chassis, so that the problem does not materialize until chassis completed on or after March 1 begin to be received and worked on by the final-stage manufacturers. On the other hand, Standard 121 probably will require redesign of some body configurations in order to remain within the limits set by the chassis manufacturers.; We do not believe that a delay in the application of Standard 121 t multistage vehicles would be advisable. As you know, the agency did consider postponing the standard in December, and decided against it based partly on information indicating that such a last-minute delay would be disruptive and wasteful. The conclusion would be even more valid today. Since the standard applies only to completed vehicles, it could not be suspended with respect to completed vehicles with the chassis still required to comply. Even if this were possible, it might cause anomalous and even hazardous results, since the final-stage manufacturers could disregard any design cautions of the chassis manufacturers, and could remove or disable portions of the chassis brake systems. Furthermore, even a complete delay in the standard with respect to the classes of vehicles with which you are concerned would probably not accomplish your purposes, since the chassis manufacturers could not be expected to produce chassis conforming to the standard, with accompanying documentation, during the period of delay.; For these reasons, your petition for delay of Standard 121 is denied You and your members may be assured that, within the limits of the law, this agency will be understanding in its approach to problems experienced by final-stage manufacturers as they bring their vehicles into conformity with the new standard.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4068OpenThe 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 request that we review the concerns expressed b one of your constituents, Mr. Joseph Loschiavo, about certain van seats. According to Mr. Loschiavo, the Monterey County Van Program for senior citizens uses vans with seats that are very low and close together, making it difficult for persons to get up out of the seats. He suggested that either the seats be raised about eight inches or that special seats be provided for persons who have problems with the present seats.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues moto vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, establishes requirements to minimize the possibility of seat failure during vehicle collisions. However, NHTSA does not have any standards concerning the height or spacing of van seats.; The Monterey County Van Program has several options in obtaining van with appropriate seating. In purchasing new vans, the Program may either select from among the variety of vans offered by the major vehicle manufacturers, or go to one of a number of companies that customize vans to purchasers' specifications. A number of companies also modify used vehicles.; We note that new vans, including vans which are modified prior to firs sale, are required to be certified to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The specific certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*. If a used vehicle is modified by a business such as a garage, the business is not required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, if a business replaced a van's existing seats with higher seats, it would need to make sure that it was not rendering inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4592OpenMr. James R. Tomaino Youngstown Rubber Products Company 854 Mahoning Avenue P.O. Box 1377 Youngstown, OH 44501-1377; Mr. James R. Tomaino Youngstown Rubber Products Company 854 Mahoning Avenue P.O. Box 1377 Youngstown OH 44501-1377; "Dear Mr. Tomaino: This responds to your January 30, 1989 letter askin whether a 'permanently embossed raised dot' on your air brake hose assembly satisfies the requirement in Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for a manufacturer identification. As explained below, we believe that use of the raised dot may be potentially confusing, since it isn't readily apparent whether the mark represents an intentional effort to identify the manufacturer of the assembly or is an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process. By way of background, Standard No. 106 sets forth two methods of labeling air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. S7.2.3 states that these assemblies must be labeled by means of a band around the assembly or, at the option of the assembly manufacturer, by means of marking at least one end fitting as described in S7.2.3.1. You have asked us about the labeling requirements under the second option. Since, for reasons of drafting convenience, the second option incorporates the portions of the first option relating to the nature of and filing of the designation, it is necessary to begin with a discussion of the first option. The first option (S7.2.3(b)) provides that the band must be marked with information including: A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol. (Emphasis added.) The second option (S7.2.3.1) requires assemblies to be 'etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b).' (Emphasis added.) The concluding language, 'in accordance with S7.2.3(b),' modifies both of the preceding clauses, i.e., both 'identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly' and 'is filed.' Thus, the identification provided in compliance with the second option 'may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.' Since the raised dot is clearly neither a block capital letter or a numeral, the issue is whether it can be considered a symbol. The dictionary defines 'symbol,' for the purposes relevant to your inquiry, as follows: 'something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental but not intentional resemblance.' (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) The agency concludes that the dot is not a symbol because it is not readily apparent that the raised dot stands for or suggests anything. Instead, the dot appears to be only an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process. Manufacturer identification is crucial for the enforcement of Standard No. 106's requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies. We urge you to use a more distinctive mark to identify your company as the manufacturer of the assembly. To assist you, and in response to your March 17 telephone request, we are enclosing examples of designations which manufacturers of brake hoses, fittings and assemblies have registered with NHTSA. These examples should be helpful in providing ideas for another designation. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Attachment"; |
|
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.