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: aiam5127OpenMr. J. C. Townley Jay Townley & Associates N1367 Southern Road Lyndon Station, WI 53944-9708; Mr. J. C. Townley Jay Townley & Associates N1367 Southern Road Lyndon Station WI 53944-9708; "Dear Mr. Townley: This is in further response to your letter o November 24, 1992, asking for 'an advisory opinion that the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle is not a 'motor vehicle' or 'motor driven cycle' within the meaning of the Safety Act and regulations promulgated thereunder.' Previously, we had acknowledged your withdrawal of your request for confidentiality. The Yamaha is 'a bicycle equipped with a battery powered pedal assist system that engages when the system senses 'kicking' torque between 5 Kg and 50 Kg, such as when the bicycle is starting from a stop, or climbing hills.' It is intended to facilitate standing starts in traffic, assist in climbing hills, and to 'keep up the pace when a rider becomes fatigued while commuting, running an errand or exercising. The system is designed to engage when the driver is actively pedaling, and to disengage when the speed is less than 1.24 mph or more than 15 mph, when torque at the pedals is less than 11 lbs or more than 110 lbs, and when the braking system is activated. The photographs you have enclosed show, in all important respects, vehicles configured as conventional bicycles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), defines a 'motor vehicle,' in pertinent part, as 'any vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)). On November 6, 1974, the Consumer Product Safety Commission asked the agency whether a 'motorized bicycle' was a 'motor vehicle' if it utilized mechanical power to propel it 'only some of the time.' NHTSA replied on December 6 of that year that it considered motorized bicycles to be motor vehicles subject to its jurisdiction (specifically classified as motor-driven cycles), and that it did 'not find it relevant to the question of safety standards' applicability that a particular vehicle, fully equipped to operate as a motor vehicle within the meaning of our Act, may also have the capability of operating in some other mode.' Earlier that year, the agency had rejected arguments by Peugeot and Motobecane on behalf of their 'mopeds' that vehicles which produce no more than 1.5 horsepower deserved a categorization other than as motor-driven cycles (motorcycles developing 5 horsepower or less), but it did amend the motorcycle lighting and braking standards to modify performance requirements for motor- driven cycles with a top speed of 30 mph or less, and to allow placement of the rear brake control on the left handlebar. Subsequently, on October 28, 1976, NHTSA informed Ohio Bikes, Inc. that a bicycle, even if used, became a newly manufactured motor vehicle when an engine was attached to it. At first blush, it might appear that this line of interpretations should lead to a conclusion that the Yamaha is a 'motor vehicle.' However, we believe there is a significant difference between the Yamaha pedal assisted bicycle and motorized bicycles and mopeds. The propulsion systems of the latter vehicles enable them to operate on power without pedaling. However, the power assist of the Yamaha disengages when torque at the pedals is less than 11 pounds, which means that the system will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular effort. NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' for purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 mph or less. While the Yamaha has a maximum speed of 20 mph or less, its body configuration does not distinguish it from motorized bicycles and mopeds. However, the vehicles that NHTSA addressed under this line of interpretations operated solely on power. The Yamaha does not easily fit into our previous analyses concerning whether particular vehicles are considered 'motor vehicles.' After carefully considering the question, we have concluded that, in light of the combination of a low maximum speed while operating on power (the power of the Yamaha disengages when speed is more than 15 mph) and the fact that power is only provided if the operator is providing muscular effort (by continuously pedalling), the Yamaha is not a 'motor vehicle' under the Safety Act. We note that, even with power assist, the operation of the Yamaha is essentially the same as that of a bicycle, i.e., the operator must pedal under the same circumstances as a traditional bicylist and the speed of the Yamaha does not differ from the speed of traditional bicycles. Since the Yamaha is not a 'motor vehicle,' it is not subject to the jurisdiction of this agency. Vehicles that are not motor vehicles are subject to the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and you should consult the Commission for further information as to whether there are regulations that the Yamaha must meet. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2748OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your January 5, 1978, letter asking whether the join connecting the front roof cap to the windshield header is considered a joint subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*.; Standard No. 221 applies only to joints connecting body components t body panels in a bus body. Bus body is defined as 'the portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space, exclusive of the bumpers, the chassis frame, and any structure forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting.' Any joint falling outside the area prescribed for the definition of bus body is not considered a joint subject to the standard.; If the joint to which you refer is forward of the *forwardmost* poin of the windshield mounting, it is not subject to the requirements of the standard. The location of this joint, however, is not clear from your letter. The second paragraph of your letter indicates that the lower portion of the windshield glass extends forward of the referenced joint. If the lower portion of the windshield mounting as well as the glass is forward of the joint in question then that joint lies within the area defined as the 'bus body' and is subject to the requirements of the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0775OpenMr. Paul Weirich, General Manager, Weirich Associates, 540 Frontage Road, Northfield, IL 60093; Mr. Paul Weirich General Manager Weirich Associates 540 Frontage Road Northfield IL 60093; Dear Mr. Weirich: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1972, inquiring about the use o plastic for an automatically closing fuel cap for automobiles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has th responsibility for promulgating standards that improve the safety performance of new motor vehicles to minimize injuries and fatalities associated with the use of motor vehicles. Among the standards that have been issued is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, which specifies performance requirements for the fuel tank, fuel tank filler pipe, and fuel tank connections. Like other Federal standards issued by the NHTSA, this standard is performance oriented and does not specify design requirements. This standard will shortly be amended to specify additional performance requirements including rear-end collisions and rollover. In addition, other proposals will also be issued to considerably improve fuel containment to minimize the possibility of fuel spillage resulting from additional vehicle impacts. The essential requirements pertain to demonstrations of safe fuel containment as the result of standardized vehicle crash tests. how the results are to be achieved, what materials can or cannot be used, or other design features, are left to the discretion of the motor vehicle manufacturer in order that there should be the maximum freedom for innovation and inventiveness to meet the specified safety performance. We have no restrictions in the use of plastics or other materials that meet a specified safety performance requirement.; In view of present rulemaking action to amend FMVSS No. 301, there ha been much information assembled, which is part of the public record, concerning comments from manufacturers, the interested public, and from suppliers of components. Your components, including a self-closing fuel cap and a seal within the filler pipe are interesting developments having possible contribution to improved safety. We would be pleased to have more information concerning these developments and with your permission, we would like to have copies of descriptive information to put into our public record, Docket No. 70-20, for the public and for the motor vehicle industry to see.; We should mention also that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, whic regulates interstate commercial transportation of passengers and cargo, has regulations which include fuel caps. you may want to contact this organization for their current requirements. Their location is at the same address of NHTSA.; Relative to pollution, the current requirements for fuel evaporativ emission controls have resulted in motor vehicles being equipped with fuel caps that either have no vents or which vent only after certain stress develops from positive of negative internal tank pressure. You may want to contact the Environmental Protection Agency concerning their regulations. The address is 1626 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.; We are enclosing a copy of FMVSS No. 301, a copy of a notice proposin additional requirements, and a copy of Public Law 89-563.; We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1867OpenMrs. Valerie L. Stein, Specialty Sales Assistant, William Penn Laboratories, 1882 Guildhall Building, Cleveland, Ohio 44115; Mrs. Valerie L. Stein Specialty Sales Assistant William Penn Laboratories 1882 Guildhall Building Cleveland Ohio 44115; Dear Mrs. Stein: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1975, to Mr. Schultz enclosing a sample brake fluid can, and asking whether it meets paragraph S5.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116.; Since the inner metal pressed-in closure must be punctured or otherwis damaged, or removed, in order to use the fluid, the can meets our container sealing requirement.; The can also meets other requirements of Standard No. 116 with t exceptions, The phrase 'Conforms to Federal Standard No. 116' should be phrased 'Conforms to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116' in order to meet S5.2.2.2(a). In addition, the designation of the contents as 'DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID' must appear on the can in accordance with S5.2.2.2(e). This designation in such form presently does not appear on the container.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5577OpenMr. Shih-Chiang Chen President Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd. 7F-1. No/ 286-9, Hsin Ya Road Chien Chen Dist. Kaohsiung Taiwan R.O.C.; Mr. Shih-Chiang Chen President Top World Traffic Equipments Co. Ltd. 7F-1. No/ 286-9 Hsin Ya Road Chien Chen Dist. Kaohsiung Taiwan R.O.C.; Dear Sir: This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to th Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the 'brake condition warning sensor.' You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country. The sensor causes flashing in 'the third brake light' keyed to the rate of deceleration. Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or 'center highmounted stop lamp' as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use. After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash. However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We are not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511. Sincerely, Ricardo Martinez, M.D.; |
|
ID: aiam5259OpenMr. Dennis G. Moore President Sierra Products, Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore, CA 94550; Mr. Dennis G. Moore President Sierra Products Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore CA 94550; Dear Mr. Moore: We have received your letter of August 12, 1993 'requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted.' It is clear from your letter that it is the lateral spacing of clearance lamps that concerns you as you believe that it is not uncommon to see them mounted as much as 6 to 8 inches ''inside' the side extremities of huge vehicles.' With respect to lateral spacing, Table II of Standard No. 108 requires clearance lamps to be mounted 'to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . .' The standard does not require the lamps to be mounted at the widest point of the vehicle, nor does it require them to be mounted as far apart as practicable. We believe that manufacturers generally try to mount clearance lamps to 'indicate' the overall width of the vehicle, but we recognize that there may be certain circumstances and/or configurations that require mounting of the lamps at something less than the widest point. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2066OpenMr. Terry Brooks, Transcraft Corp. P.O. Drawer 500, Anna, Illinois 62906; Mr. Terry Brooks Transcraft Corp. P.O. Drawer 500 Anna Illinois 62906; Dear Mr. Brooks: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of September 9 1975, with Mark Schwimmer of this agency, Concerning the testing of brake hose assemblies pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74.; As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the standard does not specify the testin which you must conduct, it does specify the criteria which the assemblies must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance. While the surest way for you to be confident of compliance would be to follow the procedures in every detail, you are not legally obligated to do so. Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), requires you to assure yourself that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the procedures set out in the standard, your assemblies will meet the specified criteria. In addition, you are required to repair or replace without charge noncomplying assemblies. In the event of noncompliance or failure to remedy the noncompliance, the Act specifies a civil penalty not to exceed $1000 for each violation (and not to exceed $800,000 for any related series of violations). the exercise of due care in ensuring that the assemblies comply with the standard is a defence to an action for civil penalties for noncompliance. In such a situation, however, The Act nevertheless requires you to remedy the noncompliance.; If you manufacture brake hose assemblies and install them in vehicle which are also manufactured by you, then those assemblies are exempted by S5.2.4 of the standard from the requirement that assemblies be labeled by means of a band.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5609OpenMr. Michael A. Knappo 380-1A Hartford Road Amherst, NY 14226; Mr. Michael A. Knappo 380-1A Hartford Road Amherst NY 14226; Dear Mr. Knappo: This is in response to your letter regarding a produc that you wish to offer for sale in the near future. You have asked for information on how this product might be affected by local and national laws. According to your letter, 'Auto Ad' is a portable advertising unit that is designed with a flexible screen that can be secured to a window with suction cups. The screen is illuminated with LEDs, controlled by a key pad mounted close to the driver. The unit will run off power from the car battery through the cigarette lighter, or 'hardwired in.' The diagram you enclosed shows 'Auto Ad' mounted in the rear side window of a car and a van. While we do not have information about State or local laws, I am enclosing copies of several letters we have issued in recent years concerning the applicability of Federal law to products which appear to be similar to yours (addressed to Mr. Shawn Shieh, dated June 8, 1993, Mr. Chris Lawrence, dated May 10 and March 21, 1991, Mr. Alan Eldahr, dated August 17, 1989, and Mr. Don Benfield, dated July 8, 1985). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam2436OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, California 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento California 95804; Dear Mr. Commander Heath: This responds to your September 16, 1976, question whether any Federa regulation required that the maximum load rating assigned to a passenger car tire be reduced by approximately 10 percent in calculating its maximum load rating for use on a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), truck, or bus.; The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 120, *Tire Selectio and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*, became effective September 1, 1976, and provides for the reduced maximum load rating you describe. Section S5.1.2 of the standard provides in part that '[w]hen a tire listed in [the passenger car tire standard] is installed on a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, or trailer, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing by 1.10 before calculating the sum [that must at least equal the axle system's gross axle weight rating].' A copy of the standard, with subsequent amendments, is enclosed for your information.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4448OpenThe Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member, U.S. House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey, CA 93940; The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member U.S. House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey CA 93940; "Dear Mr. Panetta: This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Dr Courtney F. Morgan, a constituent of yours. Dr. Morgan has purchased a 1987 model year Saab. The particular version of the model he saw at the dealership was equipped with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. However, the actual car that was delivered to Dr. Morgan was equipped with automatic safety belts. Dr. Morgan feels that the automatic belts are 'hazardous and cumbersome,' and asked what he must do in order to remove the automatic belts and have manual safety belts installed in place of the automatic belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts have shown their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was 'arbitrary and capricious,' and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984. That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the proper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to save lives today at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic protection requirements are phased in during the preceding three model years, beginning with 10 percent of each manufacturer's 1987 model year cars. Each manufacturer must equip 25 percent of its 1988 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems, and 40 percent of its 1989 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, l989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded. The following prohibition appears in section 108 of the Safety Act: '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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' In this case, the automatic safety belts in Dr. Morgan's Saab are a 'device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Saab, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the automatic safety belts from Dr. Morgan's car. Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent Dr. Morgan himself from removing the automatic belts from his car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If Dr. Morgan were to remove the automatic belts himself and improperly install manual safety belts, he would be putting himself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash. Please thank Dr. Morgan for informing us of his views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important subject and I appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Americans. 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.