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 |
|---|---|
ID: aiam2217OpenMr. John B. White, Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept. Michelin Tire Corporation, P.O. Box 3467, New Hyde Park P.O., New York 11040; Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept. Michelin Tire Corporation P.O. Box 3467 New Hyde Park P.O. New York 11040; Dear Mr. White: #This is in response to your letter of January 27 1976, concerning the rim listing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and 110. #You wish to designate the 15x5.5JJ rim a permissible for use with tire sizes 225-15 and 230-15. You have requested confirmation of your interpretation that you need merely list the rim in a document that is furnished to your dealers, to any person on request, and in duplicate to the Tire Division of the NHTSA. Your interpretation is correct. Please note, however, that this listing must include dimensional specifications and a diagram of the rim, unless each of the association publications referred to in S4.4.1(b) of Standard No. 109 in which the rim is listed already contains such specifications and diagram. #We hope that you will also ensure that this tire-rim combination is listed in one of those publications as soon as is possible. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1591OpenMr. David E. Martin,Director, Automotive Safety Engineering,General Motors Corporation,General Motors Technical Center,Warren, Michigan 48090; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren Michigan 48090; Dear Mr. Martin:#This responds to your letter of August 14, 1974 requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses* (Docket 1-5, Notice 11, published on June 28, 1974), regarding its applicability to specific hydraulic brake booster hoses used in General Motors products.#As indicated in notice11, it is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) intention to exempt from the requirements of the standard hydraulic booster lines subject to a different working environment than brake hose, pending development of special performance requirements for such lines. General Motors' interpretation that the hydraulic booster hoses used in the systems described in your August 14 letter are exempted from the standard requirements is correct. The system described in your Attachment A is considered to incorporate an accumulator integral with the brake booster assembly. Hence all of the hoses run between the power steering pump and the accumulator (either directly or via the power steering gear) and are accordingly exempted per Notice 11 preamble. The hoses used in the system described in your Attachment B are exempted by virtue of the provision of redundant booster poser by the independent electro-hydraulic pump.#a future amendment to FMVSS 106 to eliminate ambiguity in respect to the standard's applicability to hydraulic booster hoses is currently under consideration. Any such amendment will be consistent with the present interpretation.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4269OpenMr. Bruce Torrey, Product Performance Specialist, General Electric Company, One Plastic Avenue, Pittsfield, MA 01201; Mr. Bruce Torrey Product Performance Specialist General Electric Company One Plastic Avenue Pittsfield MA 01201; Dear Mr. Torrey: Thank you for your letters of August 13, and 26, 1986, concerning ho the requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, apply to glazing materials installed in the side windows of some New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) buses. As explained below, the information you provided in your letters and in your phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff and the information provided by NYCTA in a June 19, 1986 letter to the agency indicates the glazing materials installed in the NYCTA buses do not comply with the marking requirements of the standard.; You explained in your letter that the glazing material used in the sid and standee windows in the buses is Lexan sheet, which is a plastic material manufactured by General Electric. According to your letter the Lexan glazing material used in these windows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for 'AS-5' glazing materials. However, the material apparently was not marked as 'AS-5' material, but may have instead been marked 'AS-4/6.' (Information provided to the agency by the NYCTA in June 1986 indicates that the windows did not contain any 'AS' number. At the time of your phone conversation with Mr. Oesch, you had not been able to confirm what markings, if any, had been placed on the glazing material by General Electric).; Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirement fo glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as 'items' in the standard). Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexan, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set AS-5 glazing materials, it can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost windows if used for driving visibility.; In addition to setting performance requirements for different items o glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of S6 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked with the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that 'item' of glazing material), a model number and the manufacturer's logo. The information the agency has received about the markings on the glazing installed in the NYCTA buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.; Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to th applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, General Electric is required by Part 575 of our regulations to file a report with the agency providing additional details about the noncompliance and General Electric's plans to remedy the noncompliance. As you requested Mr. Oesch, I am also enclosing a copy of the agency's regulation concerning the filing of a petition for a determination that a noncompliance is inconsequential.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4793OpenMr. Hiroshi Kato Vice President Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. Suite 1960 3000 Town Center Southfield MI 48075; Mr. Hiroshi Kato Vice President Mitsubishi Motors America Inc. Suite 1960 3000 Town Center Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of September 4, l990 asking for an interpretation of paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 with respect to two of Mitsubishi's contemplated rear lighting plans. In the first plan, the rear garnish panel located between the lamps that are mounted at the right and left extremities of the car would be dark but the word 'Mitsubishi' in the center would be illuminated. In the second plan, the panel would be illuminated as a supplemental taillamp, and the word would not. You ask if either plan would create an 'impairment' of the required lighting equipment, within the prohibition of S5.1.3. Judging by the photograph of the Pontiac Fiero that you enclosed, which featured a design similar to your first plan, it does not appear that this plan would create an impairment. We note that the backup lamp is located in the garnish panel, approximately l5 mm from the word 'Mitsubishi', and this raises a question with respect to the second plan. When the taillamps are illuminated, so that there is a broad sweep of red light across the rear of the car, we would be concerned that the backup lamps in the garnish panel might not be readily perceived when activated. We would also be concerned that the illuminated panel might detract from the effectiveness of the stop lamps when they are activated. To ensure that the lighted panel creates no impairment of either the stop lamps or the backup lamps, it might be advisable to design it with an intensity that is lower than that of the adjacent taillamps. The determination of impairment is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer in its certification that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3056OpenMichael J. Schmitt, Esq., Legal Counsel, Engineering Division, Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A., P.O. Box 6555, Cypress, CA 90630; Michael J. Schmitt Esq. Legal Counsel Engineering Division Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A. P.O. Box 6555 Cypress CA 90630; Dear Mr. Schmitt: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1979, to our former Chie Counsel, Joseph Levin asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have quoted Column 3 of Table IV with respect to motor cycl headlamps and the specification that the one headlamp the standard requires be located 'on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline'. Yamaha would like to equip certain motor cycles with two headlamps, one to be mounted above the other on the vertical centerline with the hope that 'this may increase conspicuity and facilitate safety'. You have asked whether this mounting arrangement conforms with Standard No. 108.; The arrangement you have in mind is not permitted by the Federa lighting standard. 'Symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline' means that each headlamp is an equal distance from the vertical centerline at the same horizontal location. We believe that this provides better and more evenly distributed forward illumination than the system Yamaha proposes, while being the equivalent in conspicuity.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4639OpenMr. Russell Storms Luke Grimm 2140 SW Pallatwe Street Portland, Oregon 97219; Mr. Russell Storms Luke Grimm 2140 SW Pallatwe Street Portland Oregon 97219; "Dear Mr. Storms: This responds to your letter asking that thi Department 'approve' or otherwise 'recognize' your newly invented warning device. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you described your invention as a seven inch high, tetrahedral reflective traffic marker that is non-flammable and easily stored. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed). This standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures for warning devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle. Based on the description in your letter, your newly invented product appears to be a warning device subject to Standard No. 125. When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any new motor vehicle or new item of equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 125, it must conform to all the requirements of that standard. You are not required to get some 'approval' or 'recognition' from this agency before selling this product. In fact, NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, the manufacturer of this new product must certify that it conforms to all applicable standards. Section 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires the manufacturer of this new warning device to exercise 'due care' in certifying that it conforms to Standard No. 125. To comply with these legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 125 and determine if this new product conforms with those requirements. As you will see, Standard No. 125 contains specific requirements related to a warning device's material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability. In particular, you should be aware that section S5.2.2 of the standard requires that: each of the three sides of the triangular portion of the warning device shall not be less than 17 and not more than 22 inches long, and not less than 2 inches and not more than 3 inches wide. Your letter states that your new warning device is seven inches in height. If that is the case, the new warning device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 125. You should further compare your proposed design with the other requirements in Standard No. 125 to determine if your new warning device complies with all of the other provisions. You should be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3406OpenMr. H. Hayashi, Manager for Safety Standards, Tire Quality Assurance Dept., Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd., 2800-1, Ogawa, Higashi-Cho, Kodairai-Shi, Tokyo, JAPAN; Mr. H. Hayashi Manager for Safety Standards Tire Quality Assurance Dept. Bridgestone Tire Co. Ltd. 2800-1 Ogawa Higashi-Cho Kodairai-Shi Tokyo JAPAN; Dear Mr. Hayashi: This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1981, requesting, (sic an interpretation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR S575.104). You ask whether a tire designed for service as a temporary use spare tire, and labeled on its sidewall with the inscription: TEMPORARY USE ONLY FOR SPARE TIRE, INFLATE TO 40 PSI, MAX. SPEED 50 MPH, is exempt from the requirements of the UTQG Standards.; As you note, the 'Application' section of the UTQG regulation does no apply to space-saver or temporary use spare tires. Thus, the UTQG Standards would not apply to the tire you describe, which is designed as a temporary use spare tire and is so labeled.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3113OpenMs. Mary Ann McClure, Bob Maxant's Illinois Harley-Davidson Sales, Inc., 6510 Roosevelt Road, Oak Park, IL 60304; Ms. Mary Ann McClure Bob Maxant's Illinois Harley-Davidson Sales Inc. 6510 Roosevelt Road Oak Park IL 60304; Dear Ms. McClure: This responds to your letter asking how long you should retain certai records relating to the sale of motorcycles and motorcycle parts.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has som record retention requirements that apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Dealers are required to aid manufacturers in the maintenance of their records. For example, you must supply manufacturers with information relating to the purchasers of motor vehicles that you sell so that the manufacturer can maintain a list of purchasers.; Dealers are not required by the NHTSA to maintain records on vehicle or equipment they sell. Accordingly, with respect to the records indicated in your letter, you may use your own business judgment as to when to dispose of them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3543OpenMr. H. Nakaya, Mazda (North America), Inc., 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter asking a number of questions concernin the definition of Seating Reference Point (49 CFR 571.3). Your letter indicates that the questions arise from a concern that the definition may limit rearward seat track travel.; The agency recently published, in response to petitions for rulemaking an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the definition of Seating Reference Point. Among other things, the preamble to the notice explains that while the definition of Seating Reference Point establishes limitations on where manufacturers must locate that point, it does not prevent manufacturers from extending seat track travel behind the point. We have enclosed a copy of that notice for your convenience.; Your first question asks for an interpretation of the definition o Seating Reference Point. Among the interpretations you suggest, the one which is most nearly correct is the one which says the Seating Reference Point is the single self-determining point (no choice for the manufacturer) where the 90th percentile two- dimensional manikin should be positioned according to the SAE J826.; The enclosed notice explains that section (d) of the definition o Seating Reference Point requires manufacturers to use the 90th percentile template described in SAE Recommended Practice J826 in locating the Seating Reference Point. While manufacturers must use that template in locating the Seating Reference Point, there is some small leeway (using that device) as to where the point may actually be located. Thus, while your interpretation is partially correct, it is not correct to the extent that it suggests that there is no choice (as opposed to a limited choice) for the manufacturer.; The rest of your questions appear to involve the same issue, i.e. which version of an SAE Recommended Practice to use when a safety standard incorporates by reference an SAE Recommended Practice that has later been updated by SAE. The version which must be used is the one actually referenced by the standard. The fact that SAE updates one of its Recommended Practices does not change a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that incorporates an earlier version. Such a change would require the same type of rulemaking as any other amendment.; We believe that you will be able to answer your questions based on th foregoing discussion and the enclosed notice.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4286OpenMr. Tony U. Otani, Adyna Corporation, 6124 Candor Street, Lakewood, CA 90713; Mr. Tony U. Otani Adyna Corporation 6124 Candor Street Lakewood CA 90713; Dear Mr. Otani: This letter responds to your letter asking whether there are an regulations with which you must comply in producing an invention you call an Automotive Steering Wheel Stabilizing Aid. I regret the delay in this response.; You describe your product and include a picture. The article yo describe is a thick urethan rubber pad that a motor vehicle driver can fasten to the thigh with a band or buckle. The top part of this pad is contoured to fit under the steering wheel. You state that a driver can use this pad to apply pressure to the steering wheel, holding the wheel steady so that he may drive on a long distance highway when the course is straight. The driver then has his hands free.; Your product falls within the jurisdiction of the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) if it is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' as that term is defined in S102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines 'motor vehicle equipment' in relevant part as follows:; >>>...any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originall manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any *accessory*, or addition to the motor vehicle...(Emphasis added.)<<<; In determining whether an item of equipment is an 'accessory,' th agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Under this framework, your invention is a motor vehicle accessory.; While NHTSA currently has no standard applicable to the kind o accessory you describe, the agency does not have authority to regulate your invention. Even in the absence of a standard, please note that if you decide to market this product, then under our regulations and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, you have the responsibility to conduct notice and remedy campaigns if you or the agency later find that your product has a safety-related defect.; We are concerned with the safety consequences of your product. Thi kind of product may encourage a driver to take his hands from the steering wheel while he is operating a motor vehicle, and therefore may increase the risk of accident involving a motor vehicle. For example, removing one's hands from the steering wheel makes a driver less efficient in responding to any unanticipated road event that may require a quick change in vehicle direction. Further, a driver who feels free to do something with his hands other than steer the vehicle may not be devoting full time and attention to his driving.; I ask you to give these implications your fullest consideration, an hope you find this information helpful in making your decision.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.