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: aiam0850OpenMr. Larry E. Rhude, Bristol Laminating Corporation, P. O. Box 296, Bristol, IN, 46507; Mr. Larry E. Rhude Bristol Laminating Corporation P. O. Box 296 Bristol IN 46507; Dear Mr. Rhude: This is in reply to your letter of July 5, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to countertop materials used in recreational vehicles.; With regard to the specific components you have listed, sink tops vanity tops, and shelves would be considered 'compartment shelves' under paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302, and would therefore be subject to the requirements of the Standard. You are correct in assuming that the material used for countertops would be subject to the requirements of the Standard whenever it is used for the manufacture of components enumerated in S4.1.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3010OpenMr. M. Iwase, Chief, Overseas Technical Section, Technical Administration Department, Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Shizuoka Works, 500, Kitawaki, Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken, JAPAN; Mr. M. Iwase Chief Overseas Technical Section Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi Shizuoka-Ken JAPAN; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1979, to Bill Eason wit respect to headlamp lens marking. Mr. Eason is no longer associated with the Office of Rulemaking and we regret the delay in writing you.; You have asked for a confirmation of your interpretation that: >>>'The headlamp designed to conform to J579c shall be provided wit the lens marking specified in S4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 *even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd*.'<<<; You are correct that S4.1.1.21 permits the new code marking fo headlamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J579c even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the maximum of 75,000 cds permissible under J579c or the previous maximum of 37,500 cd of J579a. But because the code could be misleading, we are considering proposing an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would delete the new code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed a certain value, such as 40,000 cd.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4385OpenMr. Jackson Decker, Chief Product Engineer, E. E. Etnyre & Company, 200 Jefferson Street, Oregon, IL 61061; Mr. Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer E. E. Etnyre & Company 200 Jefferson Street Oregon IL 61061; Dear Mr. Decker: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1969, to the Federa Highway Administration, that has been referred to this office. In your letter you ask for a yes or no answer to specific questions relative to certification of assemblies completed from chassis-cabs. The answers to your questions follow:; 1. *QUESTION:*>>>'We manufacture bodies that are sold through non-exclusive dealer that sells construction equipment. The dealers sale includes only the body and its mounting on a chassis-cab. The chassis-cab is furnished by the customer and is normally purchased through a second dealer that handles truck sales. The chassis-cab is delivered to our factory for the mounting of the body. Do we supply certification for the completed vehicle?'<<<; *ANSWER:*>>>The answer to your first question is yes, you would suppl certification to the dealer or distributor at the time of delivery of the vehicle.<<<; 2. *QUESTION:*>>>'If the answer to the first question is yes, do w remove the temporary certification label on the chassis cab (367.5), write the chassis-cab vehicle identification number on this and place this in our file as evidence that the vehicle we assemble has been furnished with a certified chassis- cab?'<<<; *ANSWER:*>>>A simple yes or no answer cannot be given to question No 2. The method you use in procuring and retaining information relative to the chassis-cab would be up to you. The procedure you describe, writing the chassis-cab identification numbers on the label and placing same in your file would be considered satisfactory.<<<; 3. *QUESTION:*>>>'With reference to the vehicle identification number paragraph 367.4(g)(4), do we supply only our vehicle identification (or serial) number?'<<<; *ANSWER:*>>>Yes, you would only supply your vehicle identification (o serial) number in accordance with Part 367.4(g)(2) of the regulation.<<<; 4. *QUESTION:*>>>'Paragraph 367.4(g)(2) requires the month and year o manufacture. It further states 'This shall be the time during which work was completed at the place of main assembly of the vehicle.' In a previous response to a letter of ours signed by Mr. F. C. Turner and addressed to Senator Charles Persy (copy enclosed). Mr. Turner stated that a FHWA ruling stated that a completed assemblege (sic) need only conform to the standards that were in effect at the time of completion of the chassis-cab. May we assume that the date we should supply on this requirement will be the month and year of manufacture as stated on the label in paragraph 367.5?'<<<; *ANSWER:*>>>Yes, the month and year of manufacture of the chassis-ca would be used to satisfy the requirements of 367.4(g)(2), month and year of manufacture.<<<; We trust this will clarify the situation for you. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Performance Analysis Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam3440OpenMr. Willis R. Dunkley, Jean's Portable Highchair & Car Seat, 3035 Washington Blvd., Ogden, UT 84401; Mr. Willis R. Dunkley Jean's Portable Highchair & Car Seat 3035 Washington Blvd. Ogden UT 84401; Dear Mr. Dunkley: Your letter to Mr. Vladislav Radovich was forwarded to my office for reply. You wrote concerning information on Federal regulations applicable to child restraint systems. In particular, you were seeking agency approval for the child restraint system you propose to market.; Manufacturers of items of motor vehicle equipment, such as chil restraints, are regulated by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.), a copy of which is enclosed. The Act does not authorize the agency to approve products. Section 114 of the Act requires 'self-certification' by manufacturers that their product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; In the case of your product, the applicable standard is No. 213, *Chil Restraint Systems*. The new version of that standard, which went into effect on January 1, 1981, requires manufacturers to certify that their child restraint system can meet the dynamic test and other requirements of the standard. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 213 for your reference.; As you requested, I am returning the pictures enclosed with you letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1187OpenMr. Dennis C. Sullivan, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA 94106; Mr. Dennis C. Sullivan Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco CA 94106; Dear Mr. Sullivan: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, inquiring as to you responsibilities regarding the conformity and certification of motor vehicles on which Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG & E) performs certain manufacturing operations. You indicate that the operations involve 'body transfers,' in which used bodies are first removed from used trucks chassis, repaired and repainted, and then transferred to new cabs and chassis. The two questions you raise are:; >>>1) Must the vehicle comply with Federal motor vehicle safet standards at the time of the body transfer, and; 2) If not, need it comply at the time of sale to the public.<<< You indicate that your position is that you believe the answer to bot questions to be negative, that with respect to the first question, the vehicle need not conform nor be certified as conforming because no 'sale' of the vehicle has occurred, and with respect to the second question, you argue that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding used vehicles (Sec. 108(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. S 1397 (b)(1) appear to exempt these vehicles from conforming to the standards when they are sold.; We must disagree with both of your conclusions. We agree that th operations performed by PG & E, adding used bodies to new chassis, make PG & E a 'final-stage manufacturer' as defined in the Certification and Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). The Certification regulations require that final-stage manufacturers who complete vehicles for their own use ascertain and certify conformity to all applicable standards as of the time the final-stage manufacturing operations are performed. We do not agree that section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)) applies only in connection with the sale of vehicles. That section also requires conformity with respect to the introduction and delivery for introduction of vehicles in interstate commerce. We have construed this language to include the use of any vehicle by its manufacturer on the public highways, even if the vehicle has not been sold. The responsibility for certification under the regulations is concomitant with the responsibility for conformity, and, similarly, is not dependent upon a vehicle sale.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, in our view, als requires a vehicle used by its manufacturer to conform to all applicable standards at the time of its eventual sale by that manufacturer. Our conclusion is based upon section 108(b)(1), which requires conformity until the first purchase of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale. where a manufacturer uses his own vehicles, that purchase would not take place until the manufacturer ultimately sells the vehicle. However, the NHTSA is aware that conformity of vehicle systems which deteriorate under normal use may be impossible to maintain, and as a matter of administrative practice does not consider it necessary for such a manufacturer to renew conformity when his use of the vehicle has been bona fide.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2601OpenMrs. J. A. Selsemeyer, 5911 Cape Cod Court, Indianapolis, IN 46250; Mrs. J. A. Selsemeyer 5911 Cape Cod Court Indianapolis IN 46250; Dear Mrs. Selsemeyer: This responds to your April 1, 1977, letter asking several question concerning a manufacturer's responsibility for tires installed as original equipment on a passenger car.; You asked the following questions in your letter: >>>1. Are there any laws now in effect which pinpoint responsibilit for the quality of tires received as original equipment on a new car?<<<; Section 159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) places responsibility upon the vehicle manufacturer for compliance of original equipment with motor vehicle safety standards. However, Section 159 gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the authority to shift to the tire manufacturer the responsibility for compliance of tires with Federal safety standards. You should note that the Act establishes responsibility for compliance with Federal regulations and does not establish remedies for litigants in private law suits.; >>>2. Is it true that there is a federal law which makes it mandator for United States auto manufacturers to buy original equipment tires in equal amounts from each domestic manufacturer of tires? If so, may I have a copy of this law?<<<; There are no Federal laws of which we are aware that require vehicl manufacturers to purchase equal numbers of tires from each tire manufacturer.; >>>3. What is the current status of safety testing as provided by la in 1966, but never implemented? This law was to be effective January 1, 1976 for radial tires, July 1, 1976 for bias-belted tires, and January, 1977 for bias- ply tires. Was it? If not, what are the prospects?<<<; The regulation to which you refer is known as Uniform Tire Qualit Grading and is found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 575. The effective dates for implementation of tire quality grading standards for the three tire types you mention have been delayed by litigation. The agency intends to establish new effective dates shortly.; >>>4. Can a customer of General Motors ask for and receive a servic agreement for the tires at the time of sale of a car?<<<; This is a contractual matter between the purchaser of a motor vehicl and General Motors. Federal regulations neither encourage nor discourage such arrangements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3913OpenMr. Carl R. Ball, Chief of Police, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, 4100 South Kedzie Avenue, Chicago, IL 60632; Mr. Carl R. Ball Chief of Police The Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company 4100 South Kedzie Avenue Chicago IL 60632; Dear Mr. Ball: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1985, asking whethe Safety Standards Nos. 212 and 219 prohibit the mounting of police spotlights on the door post of a vehicle. None of our standards prohibit such a mounting, however, the mounting must be done in a manner that the vehicle still complies with our safety standards. The following discussion more fully explains the effect of the agency's standards on spotlight mounting.; If the spotlight is mounted on a new vehicle before its first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person installing the spotlight would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since the A pillar of the vehicle would have to be altered to install the spotlight, the installation could affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 212, *Windshield Retention*, as well as Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*. If the spotlight is mounted away from the windshield, it does not appear that the installation would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard 219, *Windshield Zone Intrusion*.; If the alteration is made after a vehicle's first purchase, the section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair shop may knowingly render inoperative an element of design installed in compliance with our safety standards. Thus, if any of those persons install a spotlight they must ensure that they have not rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance with our standards.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners However, the agency urges owners that alter their vehicles not to defeat safety equipment installed in the vehicle.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2251OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 15, 1976, request fo confirmation that calculation of the material tensile strength of body panels under S6.2(a) of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*, is based on the minimum thickness permitted by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard 525 for the thickness specified in ordering the material. This response also reflects the April 1, 1976, meeting held between Blue Bird representatives and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personnel at Department of Transportation headquarters.; Under ASTM standards, the thickness of listed materials is permitted t vary from the specified or 'nominal' thickness by a small amount. If the thickness tolerance of a material is specified by the ASTM, the NHTSA bases its determination of thickness on the 'minimum thickness' specified for that material in the 1973 edition of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. If the thickness tolerance of a material is not specified by the ASTM, the NHTSA uses the minimum thickness permitted by the school bus manufacturer's material specification.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5594OpenMr. Robert J. Ponticelli President American International 1040 Avenida Acaso Camarillo, CA 93012; Mr. Robert J. Ponticelli President American International 1040 Avenida Acaso Camarillo CA 93012; "Dear Mr. Ponticelli: This replies to your letter of July 25, 1995 asking for an opinion 'on the use of Electro-Luminescent Strip Lighting on motor vehicles.' The device in question 'is an ornamental light which produces less than .05 candela/sq. inch.' You have enclosed a brochure which shows the strip in use as a license plate frame and to mark the sides or perimeter of a vehicle. We assume that you are not asking about the license plate frame but only the 'Lighted Pin Striping'. The 'Lighted Pin Striping' comes in 'basic white' but once applied, seven colors of overlay tape are available to change the color. The brochure shows it in shades of blue and pink. You would like our views 'on the installation of this product by regulated parties such as new car dealers and non-regulated entities such as aftermarket specialty shops and vehicle owners.' We are pleased to provide you with the interpretation you seek. The basic obligation of a new-car dealer is to deliver a new car that remains in compliance with all the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which its manufacturer has certified compliance. In other words, the dealer must ensure that none of its actions before the sale of a new vehicle create a noncompliance with a safety standard. Further, if a dealer alters a vehicle before sale other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations such as painting, is required to certify that the altered vehicle continues to meet the standards. The Federal new vehicle standard that relates to your product is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. This standard permits a new car dealer to add supplementary lighting equipment such as the luminescent strip if the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The most common cause of impairment is lighting equipment that creates confusion with, or distraction from, the purpose of any item of required lighting equipment. Under Standard No. 108's lighting scheme, the color of lamps on the front of a vehicle are restricted to white and amber. On the side of the vehicle, side marker lamps and reflectors must be only amber to the front and red to the rear. Rear lighting is red or amber, with the color white permitted for the backup lamp only. The Lighted Pin Striping comes in a variety of colors. Your brochure shows one that is pink or red in color mounted on the front of a vehicle. We believe it possible that a motorist seeing a color of light on the front of the vehicle generally used on the rear or on the side at the rear could be distracted from the driving task. There is also the possibility that the strip would be bright enough to mask and thereby reduce the effectiveness of an adjacent front or rear turn signal, or stop lamp. In general, the agency tries to discourage the use of novelty lighting devices because of the uncertain reaction an unfamiliar light or reflection may cause in other drivers on the roadway. However, the determination as to whether installation of the lighting strip would impair the efficiency of required lighting equipment is initially that of the new car dealer who must determine whether his modifications to a new vehicle might take it out of compliance. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not contest it. With respect to sales in the aftermarket, installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business of the lighting strip would be prohibited if the use of the strip would, in the words of the statute, 'make inoperative' any of the required lighting equipment. We tend to equate 'make inoperative' and 'impair effectiveness' so that the same considerations would have to be taken into account in installing the lighting equipment on a used as well as a new car. However, this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner who, under Federal law, may install the lighting strip regardless of its effect upon compliance. Nevertheless, even if novelty lighting equipment does not violate Federal law, the ultimate decision of its acceptability is that of the State in which the lighting strip is to be used. It is our understanding that, for example, that California requires any emitted or reflected light from the front of vehicles to be white or yellow in color, which would appear to preclude installation of the lighting strip in colors other than these. For an opinion on the treatment of the lighting strip under State laws, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0796OpenMr. Satoshi Nishibori, Engineering Representative, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Nissan Motor Company Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letters of July 25 and 28, 1972, on th subject of the positioning of seat backs for the purposes of testing under Standards No. 208 and 210.; The 'nominal design riding position' specified in Standard 208 an formerly employed in Standard 210 is the position considered by the manufacturer as that most likely to be used by vehicle occupants. In our compliance tests, we ask the manufacturer of each vehicle to be tested to advise us of the correct position.; The term 'most upright position' used in Standard 210 was adopted i part to avoid the need to go to the manufacturers for advice each time we tested a vehicle's seats. Under S4.3.2 of the standard, the seat back is adjusted to the position which places the seating surface most nearly in a vertical position.; There have, however, been difficulties with the use of the 'mos upright position', in cases where that position is not the same as the position used by the manufacturer to establish the seating reference point. Because S4.3.2 also calls for the positioning of the SAE J826 mannikin on the seating reference point, there is a possibility that the mannikin cannot be correctly positioned. This does not appear to be a serious discrepancy, but it is one that should be resolved, and we intend to do so by appropriate amendment in the *Federal Register*.; Sincerely, 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.