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: aiam5176OpenSt. F. Steiner Consultant AET Network 2190 3rd Street San Francisco, CA 94107; St. F. Steiner Consultant AET Network 2190 3rd Street San Francisco CA 94107; "Dear Sir or Madam: We have received your 'Dear Mr. Van Orden' lette of May 4, 1993, which was addressed to me. You wish to import 3- and 4-wheeled vehicles from Europe 'for research and exploration', and have asked several questions relating to U.S. laws and D.O.T. requirements. Your first question is: 'Are there any safety standards and regulations for the above mentioned automobiles?' The answer is yes. All 3-wheeled motor vehicles are considered 'motorcycles' for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Depending upon their configuration, but not upon their weight, 4-wheeled vehicles are either 'passenger cars', 'multipurpose passenger vehicles', 'trucks', or 'buses' for purposes of the safety standards. However, motor vehicles intended solely for purposes of research may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the safety standards under the terms and conditions that the agency has set out in 49 CFR Part 591. Your second and third questions are whether there is a minimum speed standard regulation or weight limitations for the vehicles you wish to import. The answer is no. However, a motorcycle with 5-horsepower or less is considered a 'motor-driven cycle', and some of the motorcycle standards impose lesser requirements for motor-driven cycles, and motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in l mile is 30 mph or less. Your fourth question relates to the conversions required to meet U.S. specifications and standards. As indicated previously, no conversion is required when the importation is solely for the purpose of research. If you wish to import vehicles that have been originally manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, the manufacturer will find those standards at 49 CFR Parts 571, 581, and 541, respectively. If you wish to import nonconforming vehicles for conversion after importation, then the agency must determine that the vehicles are eligible for entry pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593, and importation and conversion accomplished through a Registered Importer pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. Your final question is whether the vehicles will be permitted on highways. This is a question that is not answerable under Federal law. Each State determines the criteria for licensing motor vehicles for use on the roads under its jurisdiction. If a State does not license a vehicle for on-road use (all terrain vehicles, minibikes, golf carts are examples), a basis exists for a manufacturer to determine that its vehicles are not 'motor vehicles.' If a vehicle is not a motor vehicle, i.e. one manufactured primarily for on-road use, then no Federal safety standards apply to it. If you have any further questions about the importation process, you should refer them to Mr. Van Orden at our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Enforcement. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0499OpenMr. Robert W. Etter, G & D Communications Corporation, 12997 Merriman Road, Livonia, MI 48150; Mr. Robert W. Etter G & D Communications Corporation 12997 Merriman Road Livonia MI 48150; Dear Mr. Etter: This is in reply to your letter of October 22, 1971, and your phon call to Michael Peskoe of November 15, 1971, requesting a copy of the Consumer Information regulations and asking what penalties may be imposed on manufacturers if their vehicles cannot perform as well as the figures they provide pursuant to the regulation. You stated in the above conversation that you have obtained the volume entitled 'Performance Data for New 1971 Passenger Cars and Motorcycles' which contains a copy of the Consumer Information requirements. I have enclosed certain amendments to the Consumer Information regulations which will bring the regulations as they appear in this volume up to date.; With reference to your question regarding penalties for violations o the Consumer Information requirements, Sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. SS 1397, 1398) authorize the imposition of civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, and up to $400,000 for any related series of violations, against manufacturers whose vehicles cannot perform at least as well as the data they supply indicates. In addition, injunctive proceedings may be utilized pursuant to section 110 of the Act (15 U.S.C. S 1399).; I trust this answers your question. We regret that it was overlooked i our first response to your letter.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5361OpenMr. Jim Davis President Russell Performance Products 2645 Gundry Avenue Signal Hill, CA 90806; Mr. Jim Davis President Russell Performance Products 2645 Gundry Avenue Signal Hill CA 90806; "Dear Mr. Davis: This responds to your letters to Mr. David Elias formerly of this office, about the requirements of Standard 106, 'Brake Hoses,' for labeling hydraulic brake hose assemblies. I apologize for the delay in responding. You explain in your letters that Russell holds a license to manufacture brake hose assemblies from Titeflex Corporation, a manufacturer of brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies. Titeflex supplies Russell with braided hose, and Russell manufactures the end fittings that Titeflex designed, using Titeflex's engineering drawings. Russell assembles the Titeflex hose with the end fittings, and 'markets these hose assemblies in the marketplace.' You ask about marking the hose assemblies with a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the assembly, pursuant to S5.2.4 of Standard 106. You ask whether both Russell's and Titeflex's designations are required to be labeled, or only the designation of Russell. The answer is only Russell's designation is required to be marked. Russell is manufacturing the assemblies and will market the assemblies. Russell's designation will identify Russell as the manufacturer of the assembly in the event of a possible noncompliance or defect with the assembly. You also ask whether Titeflex's hose must be labeled with the information specified in S5.2.1 and S5.2.2 of Standard 106. The first part of your question asks whether the labeling requirements apply to bulk brake hose 'with a stainless braided outer covering.' The answer is yes. The standard does not exclude braided brake hoses from the labeling requirements. The second part of this question asks about the required labeling for hoses that are part of brake hose assemblies. You ask for confirmation that Standard 106 does not require the hose to be labeled once the hose is part of a brake hose assembly. Your understanding is correct with regard to S5.2.2. The last sentence of that paragraph states: 'The information specified in S5.2.2 need not be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose assembly or a motor vehicle.' (The quoted sentence was adopted at 56 FR 50520, October 7, 1991, to replace the sentence you referred to.) Accordingly, the hose need not bear the labeling of S5.2.2 when the hose is part of an assembly. However, the hose must still bear the stripes required by S5.2.1 unless, to quote from S5.2.1, the hose is 'manufactured for use only in an assembly whose end fittings prevent its installation in a twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle.' I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at the above address, or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Nicholas S. Copass Sales Manager Titeflex Industrial America 170 Tapley Street Springfield, MA 01104-2893"; |
|
ID: aiam4989OpenMr. Jeff Ruff Director of Fleet/Government Sales The Braun Corporation 1014 S. Monticello P.O. Box 310 Winamac, IN 46996; Mr. Jeff Ruff Director of Fleet/Government Sales The Braun Corporation 1014 S. Monticello P.O. Box 310 Winamac IN 46996; Dear Mr. Ruff: This responds to your letter of February 10, 199 requesting advice regarding the location of the upper anchorage for the front passenger seat shoulder belt. By now, you should have received our reply (dated February 14, 1992) to your previous letter (dated October 30, 1991). In that letter, I explained that NHTSA will not conduct any crash testing of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while the agency reviews the petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association to exclude these vehicle from the dynamic crash test requirement. Because this is now a pending rulemaking, the agency cannot discuss what requirements the agency will propose for these vehicles prior to the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). However, as explained in our previous letter, NHTSA is aware of the need of manufacturers such as yourself and your customers to have this matter addressed as soon as possible. Therefore, the agency is proceeding with preparation and publication of the NPRM as quickly as possible. 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, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0163OpenGeorge M. Hilgendorf, Esq., One North La Salle Street, Suite 4100, Chicago, Illinois 60602; George M. Hilgendorf Esq. One North La Salle Street Suite 4100 Chicago Illinois 60602; Dear Mr. Hilgendorf: Mr. Frank Coy, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary o Transportation, has asked that I respond to your letter of April 16, 1969, in which you ask whether a station wagon purchased in March of 1968, equipped with two ply tires, violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; The vehicle you purchased was apparently manufactured prior to April 1 1968, and therefore, it was not required to be equipped with tires conforming to Standard No. 109. However, even if the standard were applicable, because a tire is labeled '2-ply' it is not necessarily a non-conforming tire. Standard No. 109 does not specifically require tires to have a given number of plies. It does require that irrespective of any ply rating tires pass minimum performance tests. As to passenger cars, Standard No. 110 requires that passenger car manufactured after April 1, 1968, (1) must be equipped with tires that comply with Standard No. 109, and (2) the vehicle must not place a load on any of the tires greater than the load capacity of the tire specified in Standard No. 109.; Very truly yours, Howard A. Heffron, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4823OpenThe Honorable John D. Dingell Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable John D. Dingell Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; "Dear Mr. Chairman: Your letter of July 10, 1990 about th applicability of NHTSA's safety standards to replacement parts was misplaced. This is indeed unfortunate, embarrassing, and I can assure you extraordinary. You asked me to review an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter from our Office of Chief Counsel to Mr. Rowghani, which indicated that Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, applies only to new vehicles, and not to doors sold as replacement parts. In view of your concern about replacement parts, we have reviewed that interpretation, and our authority regarding replacement parts. Many of our safety standards apply only to complete vehicles, while others apply only to the individual components (whether original or replacement equipment). Some apply both to vehicles and to the components involved. Each of our standards includes an 'Application' section, which clearly defines the scope of coverage, based on the nature of the safety issue and the vehicle/equipment items involved. NHTSA's standards which apply to equipment (both original and replacement equipment) generally cover those types of items which can be used in many different vehicle lines, which are frequently replaced or sold separately, and which can be independently tested. These include such items as brake hoses (Standard 106), lamps and reflectors (Standard 108), tires (Standards 109, 117 and 119), windows and windshields (Standard 205), safety belt assemblies (Standard 209), child safety seats (Standard 213), and motorcycle safety helmets (Standard 218). Other safety systems require testing in a full-vehicle context, and our safety standards are applied to the vehicle rather than the component. Examples include brake performance (Standards 105 and 121), occupant crash protection (Standard 208), head restraints (Standard 202) and roof-crush resistance (Standard 216), as well as side-door strength. As noted in the April 9 letter, Standard 214 applies only to whole cars, not to replacement parts, as stated in the application section (see S2 of Standard 214, copy enclosed). While most manufacturers have chosen to meet the Standard by adding reinforcement beams, we are aware of at least one vehicle (a gray-market imported Mercedes-Benz) which passed the standard's compliance test without such a beam. Further, while intuitively it seems that doors without a reinforcement beam are not as safe as ones with a beam, efforts to document a safety problem have been unsuccessful. The current compliance procedures specify testing a door as part of a new vehicle (see S4 of Standard 214), since it does not appear feasible to specify an appropriate procedure for testing an individual new door (whether original or replacement) by itself. The reason for this is that a door's performance in resisting intrusion is dependent not only on the structure of the door itself, but also other factors such as the vehicle frame into which the door fits, and the hinges and latches which hold the door in place within the frame. In addition, vehicle seats may help resist intrusion and protect occupants. The current standard reflects these factors. While the current standard does not apply to replacement doors, NHTSA has full authority to pursue any alleged safety problems with doors or any other vehicle components under the 'defects' provision of the Safety Act. If evidence demonstrated that certain replacement doors presented an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, the agency could order the manufacturer of such doors to repair or replace such doors. At the present time, however, we are not aware of a safety problem with replacement doors that would warrant the commencement of a defects investigation. I appreciate your interest in the safety of vehicle parts and hope this information is helpful. For further discussion of the legal issues regarding the applicability of standards, your staff should feel free to contact our Chief Counsel, Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, at 366-9511. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0533OpenMr. William C. Bottger, Jr., Latham & Watkins, 615 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017; Mr. William C. Bottger Jr. Latham & Watkins 615 South Flower Street Los Angeles CA 90017; Dear Mr. Bottger:This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971 in which you ask whether a manufacturer may add certain statements to the Certification label required pursuant to Part 567 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. You state that the manufacturer in question is engaged in the manufacture and mounting of concrete mixer assemblies. Because, as you state, the weight of the concrete may vary according to the mix formula, and because the volume of mix loaded into a mixer can also vary, the manufacturer wishes to add to his Certification label a declaration of the vehicle's cargo load and an indication of the maximum volume of mix that could be safely hauled within the rated cargo load limit.; There is no prohibition to this additional information being added t the Certification label as long as (1) it appears after the required information, and (2) it is stated in such a way that it cannot be confused with the information, particularly the GVWR and GAWR, required to be placed on the label.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1288OpenMr. Howard Levine, Ft. Lauderdale Police Dept., 1300 W. Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL (zip code missing); Mr. Howard Levine Ft. Lauderdale Police Dept. 1300 W. Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale FL (zip code missing); Dear Mr. Levine: This is in reply to your inquiry of October 18, 1973, concerning th legal consequences of disconnecting the seat belt interlock systems in the new cars your department is purchasing.; The dealer or distributor from whom you buy the cars is required unde subsection 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Public Law 89-563 (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)), to deliver them to you with the interlocks operational. However, subsection 108(b)(1) of the act provides that the requirements of subsection 108(a)(1) do not apply after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale. As a purchaser who intends to use the cars, rather than resell them, your department is therefore not obliged to keep the interlocks operational.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4570OpenJ.W. Lawrence, Manager, Compliance Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation 7825 National Service Road Airpark West, P.O. Box 26115 Greensboro, NC 27402-6115; J.W. Lawrence Manager Compliance Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation 7825 National Service Road Airpark West P.O. Box 26115 Greensboro NC 27402-6115; "Dear Mr. Lawrence: This is a response to your letter of October 5 1988, asking this agency to 'reconsider and rescind' an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR /571.124). The interpretation which was the subject of your request was addressed to Mr. Leon Steenbock and dated March 17, 1988. Mr. Steenbock asked whether it is permissible under Standard 124 to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. In our response to Mr. Steenbock, we stated that while nothing in the Standard prohibits installing a hand-throttle control in a new vehicle, ''locking hand throttle controls' are expressly prohibited by Standard 124.' In your letter, you stated that most (and perhaps all) heavy truck manufacturers install hand throttles for engine warm-up, extended idle periods, and for vocational applications such as pumping, compacting, and mixing. You also stated that your company installs only locking hand throttle controls and that these locking hand throttle controls hold the driver-selected engine idle speed until such time as the driver selects a new idle speed, or disengages the throttle. In support of your position that the letter to Mr. Steenbock was incorrect, you referred to the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard 124. NHTSA's response to requests that special provisions be made for hand throttles was as follows: Mack and Alfa Romeo petitioned that 'hand-throttles' and throttle positioners be specifically excluded from the definition of 'idle position.' Petitioners stated that in the event such a device is used a return to the preset throttle position occurs upon release of the driver-operated accelerator control system. This request is granted. If a driver choose to raise the lowest engine speed threshold by the use of a throttle positioning device, the throttle should return to that new position within the same time requirements specified in section S5.3. Accordingly, the NHTSA is amending the definition of 'idle position' to provide for the use of throttle positioners. (37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.) In accordance with this stated intent, the definition of 'idle position' in S4.1 of Standard 124 was amended to read: (T)he position of the throttle that will provide the lowest engine speed for existing conditions according to the manufacturers' recommendations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, engine speed adjustments for cold engine, air conditioning equipment, and emission control equipment, and the use of throttle setting devices. Because of this language, we agree with your position that Standard 124 permits the installation of hand throttles, including locking hand throttle controls, provided that the vehicle's engine returns to the lowest engine speed threshold as adjusted by use of the hand throttle within the time and under the conditions set forth in S5 of Standard 124. To the extent that our March 17, 1988 letter is inconsistent with this interpretation, it is incorrect. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation Clintonville, WI 54929-1590"; |
|
ID: aiam0860OpenMr. Satoshi Nishibori, Engineering Representative, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 07632; Mr. Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letters of August 8, and August 28, 1972 requesting interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'.; In your August 8th letter, as we understand your first question, yo ask whether the adhesive, sound-proofing material used on the floor panels of your cars should be tested together with the few insulating fibers which become embedded in this material when the insulation which covers the sound- proofing material is removed. The Standard provides a list of the interior components which must meet its requirements and the manner in which those components are to be tested. Since the sound-proofing material you have described would not be considered a floor covering and it is not otherwise included in S4.1 of the Standard, it is not subject to the requirements.; You ask further whether the 'seal screen' you glue peripherally on th inner, door panels to prevent water from penetrating the interior of the door must meet the requirements of the Standard. The 'seal screen', as you describe it, does not appear to be part of the panel and, accordingly, it would not be subject to the Standard.; In your August 28th letter, you ask whether the procedure you have fo testing the 'jute' insulating material used under the floor carpet of your cars conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 302. You state that this procedure includes removing the insulation and testing its top surface, which you designate as 'surface B', rather than testing its bottom surface, which you designate as 'surface A'. We are not sure what you mean by testing a 'surface', the Standard refers to a test for the entire specimen. You may be concerned with whether the specimen is oriented upward or downward. Under the Standard, the test specimen for each component is to be tested 'so as to provide the most adverse results'. Accordingly, the relevant test result is the most adverse one achieved in any horizontal orientation, either upward- or downward-facing. The fact that you remove the insulating material so as not to raise the nap on its bottom surface is consistent with existing test procedures.; 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.