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: aiam5486Open"Mr. Gary Blous V.P. Engineering Fitting Image 2075 Adams Avenue San Leandro, CA 94577"; "Mr. Gary Blous V.P. Engineering Fitting Image 2075 Adams Avenue San Leandro CA 94577"; "Dear Mr. Blous: This responds to your letter asking about how thi agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. In your letter, you described your product as a bag holder for the interior of vehicles, designed to attach to the head restraint and hang on the back side of the front seats. Based on the illustration you provided, the bag holder appears to be a 12 inch flexible strap that attaches to the head restraint, with a 'rigid plastic' hook at the end from which plastic grocery bags are suspended. The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that apply directly to your product, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA's authority to issue these regulations is based on title 49, section 30102(7) of the U.S. Code (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), the relevant part of which defines the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: (A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured, (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added). Although you appear to recognize the applicability of our regulations, based on your characterization of your product as 'after market equipment,' allow me to explain how NHTSA determines whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory under the U.S. Code. The agency applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus subject to the provisions of the U.S. Code. Your bag holder appears to be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. It appears to be designed specifically to fit in motor vehicles using the head restraints, meaning that a substantial portion of its expected use relates to motor vehicle operation. The bag holder would typically be purchased and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle). While your bag holder is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. However, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Although no standards apply directly to the bag holder, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that requires, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with that standard. If your bag holder were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the rigid plastic hook) were to be struck by the occupant's head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how big or how 'rigid' the hook is, but it is something of which you should be aware. Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the bag holder installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from 'knowingly mak ing inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .' For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the bag holder were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'make inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your bag holder in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0684OpenMr. C. D. Mampe,Technical Assistant,Engineering Liaison,British Leyland Motors, Inc.,500 Willow Tree Road,Leonia,New Jersey 07605; Mr. C. D. Mampe Technical Assistant Engineering Liaison British Leyland Motors Inc. 500 Willow Tree Road Leonia New Jersey 07605; Dear Mr. Mampe:#This is in reply to your letter of April 19 calling ou attention to Mr. Whitehead s letter of February 8 addressed to Docket No. 70-27. We regret the delay in answering Mr. Whitehead s question. Communications address to the docket, which arrive in large volume, are normally filed without reply. We request that letter requesting a reply be addressed to the Administrator, not the docket, so that they will be promptly assigned for action.#Mr. Whitehead asked whether a display of 'red letters' when the lamp is lit would satisfy the proposed revision of Standard No. 105, and recommended that the words 'red lens' be deleted from paragraphs S4.2.2c and S4.7.2d of the proposed amendment to Standard No. 105. The red letters described appear to satisfy the intent of proposal, and the suggestion for rewording will be considered when the final rule is issued.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1996OpenMr. Richard A. Fisher, Wenger Corporation, Owatonna, MN 55060; Mr. Richard A. Fisher Wenger Corporation Owatonna MN 55060; Dear Mr. Fisher: This responds to your July 10, 1975, question whether an air-brake trailer which was begun before the effective date of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, can be completed after the effective date of the Standard without complying with the requirements of the standard.; Section 571.7 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, establishes th point at which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to the manufacture of motor vehicles and states in part: '. . . each standard . . . applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard.' Therefore, the trailer you describe must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121 if it is completed after January 1, 1975.; I have enclosed a copy of a *Federal Register* notice that concerns th manufacture of air-braked trailers, and which explains that a trailer may be certified as conforming as a completed vehicle when it is substantially completed. You should be able to determine if the trailer in question was substantially completed prior to January 1, 1975, for purposes of certification.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2713OpenMr. A. J. Burgess, Vice President, Lucas Industries, 5500 New King Street, Troy, MI 48098; Mr. A. J. Burgess Vice President Lucas Industries 5500 New King Street Troy MI 48098; Dear Mr. Burgess: This responds to Lucas Industries' November 1, 1977, request that th upcoming passive restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, be amended to provide alternative compliance by means of installation of active lap and shoulder belts equipped with an ignition interlock system.; Section 125 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (th Act) provides in relevant part that 'No Federal motor vehicle safety standard may . . . provide that a manufacturer is permitted to comply with such standard by means of . . . any safety belt interlock system.' (15 U.S.C. 1410b(b)(1)). It is the agency's opinion that this provision operates as a strict prohibition on amendments of Standard No. 208 that would have the effect of permitting compliance by provision of an ignition interlock system. This opinion is confirmed by Conference Report language on S 125 which states:; >>>No matter what procedure is followed, the conference substitut prohibits the re-establishment of the safety belt interlock system or continuous buzzer as a mandatory or optional motor vehicle safety standard. H.R. Rep. 93-1452, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess at 45 (1974).<<<; In view of this statutory prohibition, Lucas Industries' request fo amendment of the upcoming requirements of Standard No. 208 cannot be considered by the agency.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3801OpenMr. Daniel J. Roberson, Comfort-Tour Cycle Products, 8724 116th Avenue, N. E., Kirkland, WA 98033; Mr. Daniel J. Roberson Comfort-Tour Cycle Products 8724 116th Avenue N. E. Kirkland WA 98033; Dear Mr. Roberson: This responds to your letter of November 29, 1983, to the Office o Vehicle Safety Compliance, which was forwarded to this office for reply, concerning the legal requirements regulating the manufacture of motorcycle windshields. You requested information on how you as a manufacturer may obtain certification of your product under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has th authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (FMVSS No. 205), *Glazing Materials*. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). These requirements for glazing used in vehicles and motorcycles, such as minimum levels of light transmittance and abrasion resistance. Copies of FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26 have been enclosed in the letter sent to you by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance dated January 10, 1984.; You should be aware that the NHTSA does not pass approval on th compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your windshields comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination.; There are other regulations and standards affecting manufacturers o motor vehicle equipment of which you should be aware. For instance, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have specific responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety- related defects in their products. Sections 151 *et* *seq.* of the Act a copy of which is enclosed, requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. In addition, Part 556 requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of the agency's regulations. You should refer to the Act and its implementing regulations in order to understand the extent of your responsibilities as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1216OpenMr. T. Hiramine, Director, Overseas Department, Takata Kojyo Company, Ltd., No. 10 Mori Bldg. 28, Sakuragawa-Cho Nishikubo Shiba, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan 105; Mr. T. Hiramine Director Overseas Department Takata Kojyo Company Ltd. No. 10 Mori Bldg. 28 Sakuragawa-Cho Nishikubo Shiba Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan 105; Dear Mr. Hiramine: This is in reply to your letter of July 31, 1973, concerning th meaning of the term 75 percent extension' as used in S5.2(j) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; The 75 percent extension point used in S5.2(j) is intended to represen the belt's extension during its use in a vehicle. The measurement of extension is therefore begun with the webbing retracted as fully as the design of hardware and the size of the retractor permit. It may be that when the belt is retracted to this point a considerable amount of webbing remains outside the retractor, as shown in Figure 2 of your letter. The measurement of extension nonetheless begins at this point, so that 75 percent extension' is 75 percent of the incremental webbing length between this point and the point of fullest extension.; To refer to the figures accompanying your letter, the measuremen technique shown in Figure 2 is correct. That shown in Figure 1, which is based on 75 percent of the total length of the belt, is incorrect.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4014OpenMr. Richard A. Gomes, Supervisor, Technical Support, Room 28, New York City Transit Authority, 25 Jamaica Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11207; Mr. Richard A. Gomes Supervisor Technical Support Room 28 New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn NY 11207; Dear Mr. Gomes: This responds to your June 21, 1985 letter to this office concernin our requirements for emergency exits under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. I apologize for the delay in our response.; In a July 15 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, yo explained that your question concerns the side rear door on transit buses which is used to unload passengers. The door in question is not intended as an emergency exit, and the buses have the requisite emergency exits in compliance with Standard No. 217 without the need to count the rear exit door. Typically, passengers can exit the bus by pushing handles which open the door, after the driver activates a mechanism located in the driver's compartment. The Transit Authority would like to place another activating mechanism near the rear exit door that can be operated 'in an emergency.' You propose to place the second mechanism in a 'break-away' plastic case and ask whether we have standards specifying requirements for materials used for that purpose.; There are no safety standards setting requirements for the material yo wish to use to cover the secondary release mechanism. Your questions, however, raises the issue of the applicability of Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements to the rear exit door. This question arises in cases where a label is attached to a door indicating that it is to be used in an emergency.; From your description, it appears that a label would be attached to th mechanism at the rear door instructing passengers how to open the door in an emergency.; We have stated in the past that a door that is not labeled or intende as an emergency exit need not comply with the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217. However, if a door were labeled with instructions on how to open the door in case of an emergency, such as 'To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down,' then the label indicates that the door is intended for use as an emergency exit. Such a door must comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, since the label indicates to the occupants that the door is suitable for use in an emergency and it is likely that riders would use the door as an emergency exit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in emergencies.; One purpose of Standard No. 217 is to provide a means of readil accessible emergency egress. While the standard does not explicitly prohibit a plastic case around an emergency exit release mechanism, it is obvious that any type of design or device which would inhibit the release of the mechanism would not be allowed. We urge you to ensure that the release mechanism is easily accessible to bus occupants and that the plastic case does not unnecessarily impede its operation.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (1 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.), manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person selling you a new bus with the rear exit door marked as an emergency exit must ensure that the door meets Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. The Transit Authority may modify its buses by labeling the rear exit door with instructions for use in an emergency after it receives delivery of the vehicles without regard to our safety standards, since our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of vehicles by their owners. However, we would urge the Transit Authority to carefully consider the benefits of assuring continued compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2969OpenMr. 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 February 1, 1979, letter asking whether any la or regulation prohibits the remanufacture of a school bus with an old chassis and a new body when the completed vehicle does not comply with the new safety standards.; As you are aware, the agency has stated many times that such remanufactured vehicle need only comply with the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis as long as the remanufacturing process conforms to the guidelines established in Part 571.7(e) of our regulations. The agency does not view the remanufacturing problem as significant, because a vehicle's chassis normally wears out before its body. The recycling of noncomplying buses will cease when the supply of used chassis manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, disappears.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0954OpenJohn M. Carter, Esquire, messrs. Carter and Carter, 229 John Street, Clayton, NY 13624; John M. Carter Esquire messrs. Carter and Carter 229 John Street Clayton NY 13624; Dear Mr. Carter: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1972, to the Federa Highway Administration on behalf of your client, a snow plow dealer. You ask for verification 'that the addition of a snow plow to a completed truck is considered the addition of a readily attached component and does not require recertification.'; We confirm that a person adding a snow plow to a completed truck is no a final-stage manufacturer who is required by 49 CFR Part 568 to certify compliance of the vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. He is, however, responsible for insuring that the modified vehicle complies with Standard No. 108 before delivering it to its purchaser.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1646OpenMr. Reno Laforest, After Sales Service Manager, Alouette Recreational Products, Ltd., 3700 St. Patrick Street, Montreal 205, Quebec, Canada; Mr. Reno Laforest After Sales Service Manager Alouette Recreational Products Ltd. 3700 St. Patrick Street Montreal 205 Quebec Canada; Dear Mr. Laforest: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign involvin 1973 and 1974 Alouette AX-125 motorcycles.; Since four different defects are involved, it has been found necessar to assign four different National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) identification numbers. Please refer to these numbers in all future correspondence concerning these campaigns.; Campaign numbers have been assigned as follows: >>>74-0178 - Rear brake pedal lever problem 74-0179 - Kick stand problem 74-0180 - Fuel leakage problem 74-0181 - Rear brake back plate holder lock nut problem<<< Although NHTSA will consider this matter as four campaigns, you ma still combine them in one owner notification letter and in communications with dealers.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the vehicles which wer sold in the United States of America does not entirely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter does not contain the precise wording that is required by Part 577.4(b). Use of the words 'potential' and 'may' also imply that possibly a defect does not exist and should therefore be deleted from this sentence.; Your letter also fails to adequately evaluate the risk to traffi safety as required by Part 577.4(d). If vehicle crash can occur, the letter must state this. Your letter also does not make clear if the repairs will be performed free of charge and also does not give an estimate of the time needed to perform the labor necessary to correct the defect, as required by Part 577.4(e).; It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notificatio letters and send a copy of the revised letter to this office and all known owners of the affected vehicles. Since you have stated that owners will receive a second notice at the time that parts have become available, the revised notification letter can be sent to owners at that time.; It is also necessary that you submit a Defect Report in accordance wit Part 573 of the regulations. The first Quarterly Reports, as required by Part 573.5, should be submitted before February 5, 1975, for the period ending December 31, 1974.; Copies of Part 573 and Part 577 are enclosed. If you desire furthe information, please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray at this office at (202) 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
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.