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: aiam3735OpenMr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek, Vice President, Continental Products Corporation, 1200 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. van Ruitenbeek: This responds to your recent letter asking for an interpretatio concerning Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. Specifically, you asked whether your company could label two maximum load ratings on the sidewall of certain motorcycle tires it manufactures. One maximum load rating would be applicable at the tire's top-rated speed, while the other would be applicable at a speed of 60 miles per hour. Such labeling would violate Standard No. 119.; Section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information b labeled on the sidewall of all tires to which the standard applies. Section S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on all motorcycle tires, shown as follows:; >>>Max load _____ lbs at _____ psi cold.<<< The maximum rating on the tire's sidewall, as the name implies, i intended to alert the consumer to the tire's *maximum* capabilities. Allowing tire manufacturers to specify more than one maximum load, based on various vehicle speeds, would dilute the value of the maximum load information to the consumer, by introducing the possibility of confusion and uncertainty about the actual *maximum* load the tire could carry while in use on a particular trip. To avoid this, the agency has stated on each occasion when questions have arisen in this area that only one maximum load rating may appear on the sidewall of tires.; Please understand that the agency does not doubt that these tires ca carry higher loads at lower speeds. Further, it does not have any objection to your publicizing those loads in your advertising literature, which you enclosed with your letter. However, the purpose of the labeling requirements on the sidewall of tires is not to give the consumer information for all possible operating conditions of the tire. Indeed, there is not enough space on the sidewall of the tire to do this. The purpose of the labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. In the case of the maximum load information, this necessitates providing only one maximum load rating on the sidewall of the tires.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1708OpenMr. T. W. Lucas, Vehicle Safety Coordinator, Mack Trucks, Incorporated, P. O. Box 1791, Allentown, PA 18105; Mr. T. W. Lucas Vehicle Safety Coordinator Mack Trucks Incorporated P. O. Box 1791 Allentown PA 18105; Dear Mr. Lucas: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 74-0120) concerning some trucks with Rockwell FL-901 front axle assemblies with possibly defective steering arms.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject vehicle does not completely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Since your company is notifying the owners regarding a defect in certain Mack trucks, the second sentence of your letter should have stated that Mack Trucks, Inc., has determined that a defect exists in those vehicles. The reference to item of motor vehicle equipment in Part 577.4(b) only applies to campaigns being conducted by equipment manufacturers.; Your letter also does not give an estimate of the day by which dealer will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect as required by Part 577.4(e). Although it will not be necessary to renotify owners in this instance, it is expected that all future defect notifications fully comply with all applicable regulations. A copy of Part 577 is enclosed.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3365OpenMr. Robert A. Belcher, President, Coded Electronics Corporation, 1239 Taylor, San Francisco, CA 94108; Mr. Robert A. Belcher President Coded Electronics Corporation 1239 Taylor San Francisco CA 94108; Dear Mr. Belcher: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1980 asking whether you emergency hazard signaling system conforms with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You also asked as to the steps necessary to make it mandatory.; From the specifications provided in your letter, it appears that bot modes of operation (hazard and distress) would comply with the flash rates and the percent of current 'on' time required by SAE J945, the standard for hazard warning signal flashers incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If your device meets all other requirements of SAE J945 and SAE J910, the standard for hazard warning signal operating units also incorporated by reference, it should comply with Standard No. 108.; I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, setting forth the procedure under which you may petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would require a distress signaling system on vehicles.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4917OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; "Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of August 19, 1991 requesting an interpretation of section S5.3.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. That section specifies two force application options for release mechanisms of emergency exits, low force application and high force application. Your letter was sent in connection with an investigation by NHTSA's Office of Enforcement of a possible noncompliance of a 1990 Blue Bird bus with that standard, and you sent a sample bus window to assist in understanding your letter. You requested confirmation of your understanding that the requirements of section S5.3.2, 'with regard to motion, apply to the application forces and not the release mechanisms being activated by the forces.' You also requested confirmation of your 'understanding of the principles of mechanics, as applicable to FMVSS 217 requirements, that straight linear forces can cause rotary motion to occur and can be used to manually operate a rotary mechanism.' You asked these questions to support your contention that the release mechanism of the 1990 Blue Bird bus window can be operated by a force that is straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface, and that the high force application option is therefore available for that window. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. Section S5.3.2 specifies that certain emergency exits 'shall allow manual release of the exit by a single occupant using force applications each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer, either to (a) or (b).' Subparagraphs (a) and (b) set forth requirements for the two application force options, low force and high force. The specified requirements cover location, type of motion, and magnitude. The type of motion specified in (a) for low force application is 'rotary or straight', the type of motion specified in (b) for high force application is 'straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' We agree that the requirements in (a) and (b) concerning type of motion refer to the force applications that would be made by a single occupant and not to the release mechanisms that are activated by such force applications. While we do not disagree with your contention that it is possible for straight linear forces to cause rotary motion to occur, we do not believe, based on our examination of your sample bus window, that the force application that must be made by a single occupant to release the window would be 'straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' We interpret the term 'type of motion,' as used in (a) and (b), to refer to the entire motion of a force application that would be made by a single occupant in releasing an exit. In order to operate the release mechanism on the Blue Bird bus, it appears that a single occupant must lift the release handle upward as well as pulling it outward. Given the upward part of the motion, it would not be 'perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' Therefore, the high force application option is not available for such a design, and it must meet the low force application requirements. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5605OpenKaren Coffey, Esq. Chief Counsel Texas Automobile Dealers Association 1106 Lavaca P.O. Box 1028 Austin, Texas 78767-1028; Karen Coffey Esq. Chief Counsel Texas Automobile Dealers Association 1106 Lavaca P.O. Box 1028 Austin Texas 78767-1028; FAX: 512-476-2179 Dear Ms. Coffey: This responds to your letter askin whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state, 'a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable.' In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually. As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor. By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement. Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law. In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Glancy of my staff at (202)366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0057OpenMr. A. D. Prickett, Chief Engineer - Special Duties, Joseph Lucas Limited, Great King Street, Birmingham 19, England; Mr. A. D. Prickett Chief Engineer - Special Duties Joseph Lucas Limited Great King Street Birmingham 19 England; Dear Mr. Prickett: Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1968, to the Deputy Director National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning your interpretation of certain requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; The installation requirements contained in the SAE Standards that ar referenced in Standard No. 108 are enforceable requirements unless specifically exempted by Standard No. 108. With respect to the installation of license plate lamps, Standard No. 108 provides an exception to the 'Installation Recommendations' contained in SAE Standard J587b, in that Standard No. 108 requires a location 'at rear license plate.' This exception permits installation of the lamp at the top, sides or bottom of the license plate, instead of top and sides only as specified by SAE installation recommendations.; With two exceptions, the lighting devices required by Standard No. 10 must use bulbs conforming to SAE Standard J573b and bulb sockets conforming to either SAE Standard J567b or SAE Standard J822. The two exceptions are (1) motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584, and (2) disposable (throw-away) type lamp assemblies (other than sealed-beam headlamps) that do not use sockets. Sealed-beam headlamps must conform to SAE Standards J579a and J580a which, in turn, require sealed units conforming to SAE Standard J573b, but do not require sockets conforming to SAE Standards J567b or J822. The disposable type lamps((2) above) are excepted from the requirements of SAE Standard J567b since they are equipped with non-replaceable bulbs and electrical connectors rather than sockets. It is to be noted that Standard No. 108 is not applicable to motorcycles until January 1, 1969.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2590OpenMr. Richard L. Kreutziger, Executive Vice President, Coach & Equipment Sales Corp., Post Office Box 36, Penn Yan, NY 14527; Mr. Richard L. Kreutziger Executive Vice President Coach & Equipment Sales Corp. Post Office Box 36 Penn Yan NY 14527; Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking what standards appl to vehicles designed to transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school.; Vehicles that transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school ar not considered buses according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of 'bus' found in 49 CFR Part 571.3. Accordingly, these vehicles transporting fewer than 10 passengers would not need to comply standards (sic) applicable to either school buses or buses in general. The vehicles to which you refer would be required to comply with standards applicable to passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles depending upon the type of vehicle being used to transport children. You should consult Part 571.3 (enclosed) of our regulations to determine the classification of the vehicle you intend to construct since the vehicle classification establishes the applicability of the standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5255OpenMr. Greg Biba 172820 Highway QQ #8 Waupaca, WI 54981; Mr. Greg Biba 172820 Highway QQ #8 Waupaca WI 54981; "Dear Mr. Biba: This responds to your letter asking about safet regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an 'infant observation mirror' that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue 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. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror. I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, 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 in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror 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, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: '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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the 'rebound' phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4852OpenMr. Earl C. Lempke President, Delavan Industries, Inc. 1728 Walden Avenue Buffalo, NY 14225; Mr. Earl C. Lempke President Delavan Industries Inc. 1728 Walden Avenue Buffalo NY 14225; "Dear Mr. Lempke: This responds to your letter of March 6, l991, t Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether there is 'any Federal ruling stating that Trailer Clearance Lights are considered as Safety Equipment and as such are not be be included as part of the overall width of the vehicle.' You have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 323.20, the clearance lamp regulation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with the observation that 'this section does not answer the question.' I am pleased to clarify this situation for you. As the FHWA regulation states, 'Clearance lamps shall be mounted so as to indicate the extreme width of the motor vehicle . . . .' This requirement is virtually identical to that in Table II of this agency's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be located 'to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . .' In l976, NHTSA issued an interpretation that was published in the Federal Register on August 23 of that year stating that 'The term 'overall width' refers to the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of . . . marker lamps' such as clearance lamps. I enclose a copy for your information. The FHWA concurs with this interpretation, and has provided us with some additional comments. Federal width limits apply only on the National Network highways (23 CFR 658, Section A). The width of commercial trailers operated on these highways is to be measured across the sidemost load carrying structures, support members, and structural fasteners, as stated in an interpretation published on March 13, l987, a copy of which I enclose. That proceeding also determined that side marker lamps and any other 'non load-carrying safety appurtenance' which extended beyond these limits were excluded from width measurements. This would include clearance lamps, and thus exclude them also from width measurements. In December 1989, FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to consider if a new approach should be adopted to determine which devices to exclude from measurements of vehicle length and width. I also enclose a copy of that notice. FHWA advises that its next notice on the subject should be issued soon. Although under FHWA regulations, the States determine whether safety equipment is to be excluded from the measurement of vehicle width, we believe that the State determination must be identical to the NHTSA position. Federal law (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)) prohibits a State from enacting or maintaining in effect any regulation covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal requirement. We believe that a State must also interpret an identical regulation in a manner identical to NHTSA's interpretation. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2085OpenMr. C.D. McCarty, the B.F. Goodrich Company, 500 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44318; Mr. C.D. McCarty the B.F. Goodrich Company 500 South Main Street Akron Ohio 44318; Dear Mr. McCarty: This is in response to your August 30, 1975, letter concerning th Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to tires which the manufacturer expects to be used on both passenger cars and trailers.; >>>S2. of Standard No. 109 specifies: This standard applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger car manufactured after 1948...; Similarly, S3. of Standard No. 119 specifies: This standard applies to new pneumatic tires designed for highway us on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, *trailers* and motorcycles manufactured after 1948... (emphasis added)<<<; These standards are mutually exclusive. Therefore, dual marking indicating compliance with the performance requirements of each are not permitted. A tire whose predominant contemplated use is in passenger cars is subject to Standard No. 109, even if the manufacturer knows it will also be marketed as a trailer tire. The choice of standard to which the tire will be certified should be made by the manufacturer. The NHTSA will accept a manufacturer's good faith determination of the applicable standard. You should note that if the tire is certified as conforming with Standard No. 119, its use as original equipment on passenger cars is prohibited by Standard No. 110. (The proposed Standard No. 120, however, would permit the use of passenger car tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, subject to a 10 percent load rating correction factor.); Please note further that a tire which is subject to Standard No. 10 must be of a size designation listed in Appendix A of that standard. Conversely, any tire labeled with a size designation which is listed in that appendix is subject to Standard No. 109.; The final paragraph of your letter discussed 'certain types and classe of equipment [determined by the NHTSA to be] non-trailers by definition.' You appear to be referring to vehicles which are not 'trailers' because they are not 'motor vehicles' or items of 'motor vehicle equipment' as the latter terms are defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. No Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to units which are neither motor vehicles nor motor vehicle equipment. The manufacturers of such unit may equip them with tires of their choice.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting 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.