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: aiam0800OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Factory Representative Office, Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ, 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. Factory Representative Office Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of June 27, 1972, asking whether th temporary covers which you intend to use to protect a vehicle's upholstery during shipment and storage in a dealer's yard are permitted despite their nonconformity with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'. You indicate that you plan to take four steps to ensure that the covers are removed by the dealer before delivery to a customer.; While you may follow the procedure you have specified, your first ste (the attachment of a statement to the windshield pursuant to 12.80(b)(2)(iv) of each car stating that the vehicle does not conform to FMVSS No. 302, but will be brought into conformity when the covers are removed by the dealer) appears unnecessary. The NHTSA has determined that such covers will not be subject to the standard and may be installed without affecting the vehicle's conformity, if the manufacturer takes appropriate steps to ensure that the covers are removed before the car is put into use.; Two steps which should be taken to manifest this intent are: (1 placing the covers in the vehicle in such a way that their use after purchase is unlikely, and (2) making adequate provision that the covers are removed before sale to the purchaser. Although you appear to deal adequately with the second step, you should also place the covers in the vehicle in such a way that their use after purchase is unlikely. If Toyota does take these steps, then the temporary covers would not be required to conform to Standard No. 302.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4140OpenMr. Toshio Maeda, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer, Nissan Research & Development, Inc., P.O. Box 8650, Ann Arbor, MI 48104; Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor MI 48104; Dear Mr. Maeda: Thank you for your letter of April 11, 1986, requesting a interpretation of the comfort and convenience requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. Your specific question is whether the retraction requirements of S7.4.5 of the standard apply only to the front outboard seating positions. As explained below, the answer is yes.; The April 12, 1985 notice proposed changes to the comfort an convenience requirements in response to petitions for reconsideration. In the case of the retraction requirements, the proposed language of S7.4.5 said that the requirement would only apply to a safety belt system installed at the 'front outboard designated seating position.' In the November 6, 1985 final rule adopting the retraction requirement, the agency dropped the reference to the 'front outboard seating position.' However, S7.4.5 still referred to conducting a compliance test on a test dummy which has been positioned 'in accordance with S10.' S10, in turn, references the test dummy positioning requirements of S8.1.11. S8.1.11.1 and S8.1.11.2 provide for positioning test dummies in the front outboard seating positions. Thus, the minor change in the language of the requirements did not change the applicability of the requirement. However, to eliminate any possible ambiguity about the application of the retraction requirement, the agency is planning to amend S7.4.5 to provide explicitly that it only applies to the front outboard designated seating positions.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3685OpenThe Honorable Charles H. Percy, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; The Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Percy: This responds to your letter of April 11, 1983 (Ref. 3098500010 requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. D. Parutti. Mrs. Parutti is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. She believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Following is a discussion of the implications under Federal law of installing these tinting films.; A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances precludes the practice referred to by Mrs. Parutti. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such a the type referred to in Mrs. Parutti's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter hi vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Render inoperative' means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles b their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mrs. Parutti may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further question (202- 426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2997OpenMr. Paul Utans, Product Compliance, Subaru of America, Inc., 7040 Central Highway, Pennsauken, NJ 08109; Mr. Paul Utans Product Compliance Subaru of America Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennsauken NJ 08109; Dear Mr. Utans:#This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1979 requesting our interpretation of whether the turn signal identification symbol which you propose meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. The answer is yes. As long as the turn signal symbol is displayed in the horizontal mode, as shown in Table 1, it will comply with the standard. Small additional arrows that will not be confused with the turn signal symbol may be incorporated to indicate movement of the control. Your thin vertical arrows do not appear to pose any possibility of causing such confusion.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1342OpenSheller Globe Corporation, Lima, OH; Sheller Globe Corporation Lima OH; In response to your telegram of December 6 NHTSA would consider the us of a roof emergency exit as appropriate to meet the requirements to S5.2.1 of standard No. 217 if it were impracticable to use a rear exit because, as you state, retooling an existing configuration would be excessively expensive.; Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel, N40-30, National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation; |
|
ID: aiam0380OpenGerhard P. Riechel, Esq., Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Gerhard P. Riechel Esq. Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Riechel:#This is in replay to your letter of June 2 requestin confirmation of certain matters concerning compliance of the 1973 model Volkswagen Type I (Beetle) and Type II (Station Wagon) vehicles with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101.#We confirm that the arrangement, identification, and illumination of the heater and defroster controls as described at the meeting of May 25 between representatives of this agency and Volkswagen, and as presented in your letter of June 2, appear to meet the intent of Standard No. 101. Specifically, the requirement of paragraph S4.3 that control identification 'shall be illuminated whenever the headlamps are activated' does not necessarily require the installation of a separate light source to illuminate the identification of each control. Thus, if the ambient illumination emanating from the dash panel provides sufficient illumination to identify heater and defroster controls mounted on the drive shaft tunnel, then the illumination requirement would appear to be met. We agree that the use of contrasting lettering on the control knobs increases the likelihood that this method of compliance would meet the intent of Standard No. 101.#Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5478OpenMs. Lori A. Hawker 20 Begonia St. Casper, WY 82604; Ms. Lori A. Hawker 20 Begonia St. Casper WY 82604; "Dear Ms. Hawker: This responds to your letter asking about safet regulations for a product you wish to manufacture. You describe the product as 'bunting' that fits inside an infant-only car seat. (An infant-only seat is lightweight and is easily used as an infant carrier to carry an infant to and from the car.) The bunting is intended as a substitute for a blanket. You state that the bunting has slots through which the harness on the car seat is threaded and the buckle of the harness is attached to the car seat. You believe that, when properly installed, 'the bunting in no way interferes with the adjustment or function of the safety straps or buckle mechanism.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to your product. Our standard for 'child restraint systems,' FMVSS 213, applies to 'any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.' (S4 of FMVSS 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as car seat pillows, pads and bunting. While no FMVSS applies to the bunting, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, while it is unlikely that the bunting would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation 'makes inoperative' compliance with any safety standard. Standard 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for infant seats. Any person listed in 30122 who installs the bunting must ensure that the product does not vitiate the seat's compliance with those flammability resistance requirements. The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. I would like to close with the following remarks. It is crucial for the safety of an infant that the straps of its infant seat retain the baby's torso in a crash. Excessive slack in the straps due to the straps binding up on a fabric liner in the seat (such as bunting material), or because of excessive compression of the liner, can cause shoulder straps to move off an infant's shoulders. As a consequence, the infant can be ejected from the seat. We know that you recognize the importance of the straps in a crash, and that you believe that the bunting will not interfere with their adjustment or function. We underscore the importance of this feature. Bunting material that degrades the ability of an infant seat to restrain its occupant would be an obvious safety problem. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1968OpenMr. Dennis M. Dykiel, Hendrickson Mfg. Company,8001 West Forty-Seventh Street, Lyons, Illinois 60534; Mr. Dennis M. Dykiel Hendrickson Mfg. Company 8001 West Forty-Seventh Street Lyons Illinois 60534; Dear Mr. Dykiel: #Please forgive the delay in responding to your lette of March 26, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the masking requirements of Federal Motors Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*. #The requirement that the label on a brake hose remain visible after painting was amended on March 17, 1975, (40 FR 12088, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 16) to permit the label to remain masked if (1) the masking material is affixed in such a way that no adhesive contacts any part of the label and (2) the masking is manually removable. Since the requirement that the label be masked or visible, rather than obscured, is a vehicle requirement, it is not effective until September 1, 1975. Vehicles manufactured before that date may contain hose which has been painted over. #Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3955OpenMr. L. D. Pitts, Jr., P. O. Box 52592, Houston, TX 77002; Mr. L. D. Pitts Jr. P. O. Box 52592 Houston TX 77002; Dear Mr. Pitts: Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1985, asking about the effect o our regulations on a product you would like to manufacture. I hope the following discussion explains that effect.; You described your product, which you call a glare- shield, as 1/8-inch thick sheet of 'Lexan' plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. Your product is designed to be mounted inside a motor vehicle, as close to the windshield as possible, to reduce glare-related vision problems caused by the sun. You stated that your product would cover the entire windshield and is designed to be held in place by three or six latches. The latches can be released by the driver and the shield can be removed from the car.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials,* (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films o other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.; After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may themselves alte their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens on their vehicles.; If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair busines installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2647OpenMr. Byron A. Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body & Equipment Assoc., Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body & Equipment Assoc. Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Ave. Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to your July 22, 1977, request for clarification of m July 21, 1977, letter to you stating that, in the case of brake and axle modifications to change the function of a used vehicle from that for which it was originally manufactured, it is the NHTSA's view that degradation of the brake system would only occur as prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (S 108(a)(2)(A)) if portions of the brake system originally installed are removed, disconnected, or otherwise rendered inoperative. You asked whether a change in 'function' of a vehicle would include a modification that simply increases the load-carrying capacity or stability of a vehicle to carry out the same task for which it was originally manufactured.; The answer to your question is no. In the NHTSA's view, the changes yo describe would only increase the capabilities of the vehicle to perform its originally manufactured function. Thus, the 'element of design' that constitutes the original braking system of the vehicle could be knowingly degraded by the installation of an additional axle that does not provide the capability that would have been required for it if installed in the new vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.