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: aiam2963OpenMr. 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: aiam3671OpenMr. David E. Williams, Marketing Manager, Smithers Scientific Services, Inc., 1150 N. Freedom Street, P.O. Box 351, Ravenna, OH 44266; Mr. David E. Williams Marketing Manager Smithers Scientific Services Inc. 1150 N. Freedom Street P.O. Box 351 Ravenna OH 44266; Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking abou the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR 571.119) (copy enclosed). Specifically, you are representing a towing trailer manufacturer which would like to mount aircraft tires on its trailers as original equipment.; Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims fo Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, 49 CFR 571.120) specifies that new trailers shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of either Safety Standard No. 109, which applies to passenger car tires, or Safety Standard No. 119. Your client intends to meet this requirement by equipping the trailers with tires which comply with Standard No. 119. However, your tests showed that the aircraft tires which the trailer manufacturer wants to use on the trailers could not pass the high speed test in Standard No. 119. You asked if the high speed test requirement could be avoided if those tires were speed-restricted to 55 miles per hour (mph) or less.; The answer is yes. Speed restrictions may only be placed on a tire b the tire manufacturer, and may only be specified at 35, 50, or 55 mph. To create a speed-restriction, paragraph S6.5(e) of Standard No. 119 requires the tire manufacturer to mark the notation 'max speed 55 mph' on both sidewalls. When a tire is so marked, it is speed-restricted for purposes of Standard No. 119. Paragraph S6.3 of Standard No. 119 states that the high speed test requirement 'applies only to motorcycle tires and non- speed-restricted tires.' Accordingly, no high speed tests are conducted on tires which are speed-restricted.; You should, however, be aware of the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567 *Certification* (copy enclosed). Specifically, section 567.4(g)(3) and (4) requires a vehicle manufacturer to show a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on the certification label required to appear on all new vehicles. The NHTSA requires that the GVWR and GAWR placed on the certification label be unqualified by any speed restrictions and be based on the 60 mph capabilities assigned to the tires and rims by the Tire & Rim Association. Other GVWR and GAWR values may be assigned by the manufacturer, but they must be listed after the information required on the certification label, and they do not form the basis for testing a vehicle's compliance with safety standards, such as Standard No. 120.; Finally, I wish to emphasize that if these towing trailers are likel to be used at speeds in excess of 55 mph, the use of tires which are speed-restricted to 55 mph might well be determined to constitute a safety-related defect in the vehicle, under the terms of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). When a determination is made that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, section 154 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414) requires the manufacturer to repair or replace the defective vehicle or item without charge to the purchaser.; Should you need any further information on this matter, please contac Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3221OpenMr. J. Leftrook, Jr., President, G. Mack Industries, Ltd., Suite No. 3, 933 McLeod Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R2G OY4; Mr. J. Leftrook Jr. President G. Mack Industries Ltd. Suite No. 3 933 McLeod Avenue Winnipeg Manitoba Canada R2G OY4; Dear Mr. Leftrook: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1980, asking about th legality in the United States of a lamp with the words 'DON'T PASS' which you are presently manufacturing for school buses in Canada. The lamp is intended for mounting on both the front and rear of the bus.; Such a lamp is not required in this country under Federal law. Its us as original equipment on U.S. school buses would not be prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*, since its installation would not appear to impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Its legality would be determined by that of the State in which the bus is registered and operated, and therefore, you should contact the individual State for their opinion in this matter.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2060OpenMr. Stephen L. Oesch, Communications Department, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Watergate Six Hundred, Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Stephen L. Oesch Communications Department Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Watergate Six Hundred Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Oesch: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1975, inquiring as t the legislative basis for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) May 13, 1975, amendment of Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, to delay for 1 year the application of the low-corner impact requirements to vehicles with wheelbases exceeding 120 inches (40 FR 20823).; The sections of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub L. 89-563) supporting the agency's May 13, 1975, action are sections 103(a) and 103(f) (15 U.S.C. 1392(a), 1392(f)). Section 103(a) directs the Secretary to establish appropriate motor vehicle safety standards which are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. The 1-year delay in application of the low-corner requirements to 'full-sized' cars was granted as a means of providing Chrysler with relief from the serious financial difficulties it was experiencing. Based upon the information presented by Chrysler to the agency, compliance with the low-corner requirements by its 'full-sized' cars would endanger its ability to continue functioning as an automobile manufacturer. Imposition of these pendulum requirements on Chrysler was therefore not considered practicable.; Granting the relief contained in the May notice meets the need fo motor vehicle safety in that jeopardizing the existence of Chrysler as one of the United States' major motor vehicle manufacturers would have a distinct impact on the technological advances fostered by competition among these members of the motor vehicle industry. In addition, loss of Chrysler as a viable competitor in the motor vehicle market would almost certainly have an unhealthy economic impact.; Section 103(f) of the Traffic Safety Act specifies factors to b considered in prescribing standards: that they be 'reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle.' On the basis of the information submitted by Chrysler explaining the effect of this requirement on it as a motor vehicle manufacturer, the agency determined that a delay of 1 year in the imposition of the low-corner hit to the type of vehicles in question would be reasonable, in light of these policy considerations.; The NHTSA did not follow the procedures prescribed in section 113 o the Traffic Safety Act relating to cost information in its handling of Chrysler's request to delay for one year the application of the low-corner impact requirements to vehicles with wheelbases exceeding 120 inches since the Chrysler request did not constitute an objection 'to an action of the Secretary.' The low-corner impact requirements were issued in 1971 and it was not that action of the Secretary which was opposed by Chrysler. Chrysler, in its petition, has requested that new action be taken to provide them with some relief from their existing financial burdens.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2430OpenMr. Kerry G. Lund, United Recreational Products, Inc., Country Road & Highway 35, Webster, WI 54893; Mr. Kerry G. Lund United Recreational Products Inc. Country Road & Highway 35 Webster WI 54893; Dear Mr. Lund: This responds to your July 16, 1976, request for information on th requirements for a manufacturer of a light utility trailer which is designed to carry snowmobiles. I regret that we have not responded sooner.; The information you request appears in Title 49 of the Code of Federa Regulations, and I enclose an information sheet which explains how this material may be acquired.; Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR Part 566), specifie identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment regulated by our standards.; Part 567, *Certification* (49 CFR Part 567), specifies the content an location of the certification label or tag which must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards.; At this time the only Federal safety standards applicable to al trailers are Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, and Standard No. 120, *Tire and Rim Selection for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. The enclosed information sheet also explains how to acquire those regulations.; Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, became effective on January 1 1975, in the case of trailers which the manufacturer has decided to equip with air brakes. Thus trailers which you manufacture on or after January 1, 1975, which utilize air brakes must meet the air brake standard.; After you have reviewed the regulations I have referred to, pleas contact me if you have any further questions.; Yours truly, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2125OpenMr. Charles F. Butler, President, Butler Associates, Inc., Post Office Box K, Washington, DC 20014; Mr. Charles F. Butler President Butler Associates Inc. Post Office Box K Washington DC 20014; Dear Mr. Butler: I am writing in response to your September 22, 1975, letter concernin safety standards applicable to your 1975 Ford Custom Wagon. Your letter was referred to this agency by Senator Magnuson.; I am enclosing a brochure entitled *Standards* which briefly lists th Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the vehicles to which they apply.; Most of the standards were initially applied to passenger cars becaus they accounted for the vast majority of traffic deaths and injuries. Your Custom Wagon is classified for the purposes of our standards as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV). Each particular type of vehicle, such as a car, small or large truck, van, bus, or motorcycle, has its own design characteristics and configuration, with widely different causes of crash injury and fatality. Since the original Federal standards were established in 1967, effective January 1, 1968, we have been in the process of extending the applicability of our current standards and of preparing new standards where appropriate to other vehicle types, including MPV's. For example, effective January 1, 1976, all trucks and MPV's with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less will be required to be equipped with combination lap and shoulder belts with inertial retractors, just as has been required of passenger cars since September 1973. With the constantly improving accident investigation information on how and why particular injuries occur in particular types of vehicles, we expect to be able to determine which safety items are necessary and will do the most good on all vehicles. We will then issue appropriate standards as rapidly as possible.; I appreciate your concern over the safety of our motor vehicles. Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam0118OpenMr. Max Walter, Citroen Cars Corporation, 415-421 Third Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11215; Mr. Max Walter Citroen Cars Corporation 415-421 Third Avenue Brooklyn NY 11215; Dear Mr. Walter: By your letter of October 8, 1968 you ask if the glazing material i the rear window of passenger cars can be 4 millimeters thick and be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks, and Buses.; Standard No. 205 requires that glazing materials conform to the AS Standard Z26.1-1966. The ASA standard Z26.1- 1966 does not set forth how thick glazing material must be but requires the glass used to meet certain tests, depending on the type of vehicle the glass is being used in and the location of the glass in that vehicle.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations |
|
ID: aiam4858OpenDS America, Inc. 5110 Tollview Drive Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell; DS America Inc. 5110 Tollview Drive Rolling Meadows IL 60008 Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell; Gentlemen: This responds to your letter of March 6, 'l990' with respec to your interest in importing for resale Volkswagen Beetles manufactured in Mexico. You've asked for information on 'all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States.' A motor vehicle must conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States. The authority for this requirement is The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966, as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, which became effective January 31, l990. I enclose a copy of the l966 Act for your information, the amendments effectuated by the l988 Act are found at section 108 1397 , subsections (c) through (j). In brief, a nonconforming motor vehicle may not be imported into the United States unless the Admininstrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the vehicle complies or is capable of conformance to the FMVSS. Determinations are made pursuant to petitions received from manufacturers or registered importers. A 'registered importer' is one that NHTSA has officially recognized as capable of performing the conformance work. After an affirmative determination, the vehicle may be imported by the registered importer, or by any other person who has a contract with the registered importer to perform the conversion work. Certain performance bonds and fees payable to the government have been established. I enclose a copy of the most current list of registered importers. For the text of the FMVSS and other agency regulations, you may contact the outlet of the Government Printing Office closest to you, and obtain 'Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 Effective October 1, l990'. NHTSA regulations are parts 501-594 inclusive. You will be particularly interested in Parts 571 (the FMVSS), 591 (import regulation), 592 (registered importer requirements), 593 (vehicle eligibility determinations), and 594 (fees). The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the conformance capability of Mexican Beetles with the FMVSS. If you wish to petition for such a determination, you must either become a registered importer or contract with one to act in your behalf. NHTSA would be especially concerned about the capability of Beetles manufactured on and after September 1, l989, to be conformed to meet the automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), Occupant Restraint Systems. You have asked for any information the Department may have about conformance problems. During the mid-l980s, Mexican Beetles were imported for resale by commercial enterprises in Texas and California. The Texas enterprise was able to satisfy the importation requirements that were effective before the stringent amendments of the l988 Act. The California enterprise was unable to meet our requirements. We do not view the Texas experience in conversion of vehicles as particularly relevant today in light of the extensive changes made by the l988 Act. Finally, you have asked whether 'documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles.' Under our regulations, the registered importer must certify that the converted vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, and, with the initial vehicle, provide NHTSA with documents in substantation. Certainly, if Volkswagen de Mexico had conducted successful barrier impact tests exactly in the manner set forth in the FMVSS, the test results would appear to afford a basis upon which the registered importer could certify compliance. But because conformance modifications could alter vehicle structure or weight, and hence potentially affect the test results previously obtained, your question cannot be answered simply yes or no. However, a registered importer is not legally obliged to conduct a crash test to demonstrate conformance, but could verify that the converted Mexican Beetles continue to conform with the Mexican test results through the use of computer simulations, engineering studies, or mathematical calculations. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam2575OpenMr. Melvin R. Stahl, Vice President, Government Relations, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. Melvin R. Stahl Vice President Government Relations Motorcycle Industry Council Inc. 1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Stahl: This is in reply to your letter of April 7, 1977, requestin interpretations with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; You have asked whether a speedometer may be marked to register speed i kilometers per hour only. The answer is no. Table 3 of Standard No. 123 requires that motorcycle speedometers indicate speed in miles per hour. You have also asked whether a speedometer may be marked to register speed in both miles and kilometers per hour. The answer is yes. The requirement that speedometers be marked in miles per hour is a minimum requirement only and there is no legal objection to a manufacturer adding kilometer markings to the dial.; "Your next question is whether Standard No. 123 preempts a New Yor State law, passed in 1976, that requires speedometers of all motor vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1980, to measure speeds in both miles and kilometers per hour. The answer is yes, assuming that a j motorcycle is defined as a 'motor vehicle' under New York law. As you know 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that no State shall have authority to establish with respect to a motor vehicle a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicles as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Speedometers marking is clearly the same 'aspect of performance' in both the Federal and New York requirements, and it appears that New York would be preempted from requiring a motorcycle manufacturer to mark its speedometer in kilometers, though the manufacturer would not be prohibited by Standard No. 123 from voluntarily doing so."; Your final question is whether NHTSA contemplates changing Standard No 123 'mandating only or optional km/h speedometer markings.' The answer is yes. I enclose a copy of an NPRM published on December 13, 1976, proposing a new standard on *Speedometers and Odometers*. The proposal specifically allows use of kilometer markings on motorcycle speedometers in addition to the required markings in miles per hour. Note, however, that it would not apply to 'motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less' (*e.g.*, mopeds) or police motorcycles.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0548OpenMr. H. Braun, Engineering Supervisor - Production, Motor Coach Industries, Inc., Pembina, ND 58271; Mr. H. Braun Engineering Supervisor - Production Motor Coach Industries Inc. Pembina ND 58271; Dear Mr. Braun: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1972, in which you as whether it is permissible under the Certification regulations for you to list alternative tire sizes and gross axle weight ratings on certification labels for vehicles which you sell without tires, but on which you apparently install them before delivery. You indicate that the tires are supplied by the customer, which he either owns, leases, or purchases from you.; Under the Certification regulation, you may if you wish lis alternative tire sizes, and alternative gross vehicle or gross axle weight ratings, as you described in your letter. If you install the tires, regardless of whether they are owned by the vehicle purchaser, leased, or purchased from you, the tire you install should be one of the alternative sizes listed on the certification label.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.