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: aiam2132OpenMr. Don Jackson, Detroit Testing Laboratory, 8720 Northend Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48237; Mr. Don Jackson Detroit Testing Laboratory 8720 Northend Avenue Detroit Michigan 48237; Dear Mr. Jackson: #I am writing to confirm your November 7, 1975 telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning testing for the performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*. I understand that you have a contract with a hose manufacturer to perform certification testing of the brake hose and brake hose assemblies which he manufactures, and that four motorcycle companies purchase assemblies from your client which are identical but for varying lengths. #As Mr. Schwimmer explained, Standard No. 106-74 does not specify the testing which a manufacturer must do before certifying that his hose and assemblies comply, it does specify the performance levels which these products must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires the manufacturer to conduct a notification and remedy campaign with respect to noncomplying hose and assemblies. He is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying assembly (not to exceed $800,000 for each related series of noncompliances). The amount of testing which he performs has no effect on his notification and remedy obligations. The civil penalty liability, however, does not apply to a person who established that he did not, while exercising due care, have reason to know that his product did not comply. 'Due care' is a legal concept evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of the company, the amount of testing performed, and other factors. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3051OpenMr. R. Hiribarren, Director, Mini-Comtesse, Z.I. de Saint Barthelemy d'Anjou, BP 815, 49008 Angers Cedex, France; Mr. R. Hiribarren Director Mini-Comtesse Z.I. de Saint Barthelemy d'Anjou BP 815 49008 Angers Cedex France; Dear Mr. Hiribarren: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter asking whether the tw vehicles that you manufacture, the Comtesse and the Super-Comtesse, would be considered as mopeds for the purpose of applying Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) define motor-driven cycle (moped) as 'a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less.' A motorcycle is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' Further, the application of some standards to mopeds depends upon their having a maximum speed obtainable in 1 mile of 30 mph or less.; The Super-Comtesse that you manufacture, since it has 4 wheels, woul not qualify as a motorcycle or as a moped. Since this vehicle has many of the aspects of a passenger car, it would be required to comply with the passenger car safety standards. The Comtesse, since it operates on three wheels, would be considered a motorcycle. If the Comtesse meets the other definitional requirements applicable to mopeds, it would be required to comply with the standards applicable to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles.; All Federal motor vehicle safety standards are located in Volume 49 o the Code of Federal Regulations in Part 571. Many of the standards are applicable to passenger cars. Only a few standards apply to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles. I am enclosing a package of information pertaining to the applicability of safety standards to mopeds.; The NHTSA has studied three-wheeled vehicles in the past and has ha serious reservations about the safety of these vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of an agency notice issued on this subject. We hope that your vehicle does not have similar safety problems.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4794OpenMr. James R. Mitzenberg Project Engineer The Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43015-2859; Mr. James R. Mitzenberg Project Engineer The Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware Ohio 43015-2859; Dear Mr. Mitzenberg: This is in reply to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your company offers an optional transmission retarder for supplemental braking. During initial travel of the service brake pedal, the retarder is electrically operated and the stop lamps are activated. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, air is emitted from the brake valve and the service brakes are activated. You have asked whether a noncompliance with S4.5.4 would result. This section (now renumbered S5.5.4) states that the stop lamps shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. You point out that if the stop lamps are activated by the retarder, the stop lamps could be illuminated without the service brakes actually being applied during the initial travel of the service brake pedal, and up until the point in time that air is actually emitted from the brake pedal and into the service brake system. In our opinion, there is no failure to comply by the system as you have described it. We view application of the brake pedal as evidencing an intent to slow or stop the vehicle. Thus, the operation of the stop lamp is a consequence of the application of the brake pedal. We appreciate your interest in enhancing safety with the added benefits that the retarder provides in early activation of the stop lamp. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1596OpenMr. J.A. Brown, Manager - Engineering Res. & Dev., Dexter Axle Company, Inc., P.O. Box 250, 2030 South Main St. Elkhart, Indiana 46514; Mr. J.A. Brown Manager - Engineering Res. & Dev. Dexter Axle Company Inc. P.O. Box 250 2030 South Main St. Elkhart Indiana 46514; Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your August 19, 1974, request to be advised of th steps necessary to acquire a manufacturer code number as required by Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars*, and No. 120, *Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.*; Standard No. 119 applies to tires-only and it is the responsibility o the tire manufacturer to obtain a code number and label it on his products. As a user of tires, you do not have obligations under this standard.; Standard No. 120 is a proposal which applies to rim constructions an the selection of the correct rim for the vehicle it equips. As a manufacturer of rims you would have a responsibility to label your products if this proposal becomes an effective regulation. However, we noted in the preamble to that proposal (copy enclosed) that we will not require manufacturer codes until a separate manufacturer code system has been established.; I am also enclosing a copy of the most recent proposal on manufacture codes.; Your truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3401OpenMr. John G. Frail, P.O. Box 581, Bronxville, NY 10708; Mr. John G. Frail P.O. Box 581 Bronxville NY 10708; Dear Mr. Frail: This is in reply to your letter of April 9, 1981, to this agenc asking, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured *outside* of the lamp or *inside of the lamp*.' You have asked this question in behalf of an 'OEM supplier' in Germany.; The requirement in Table IV of Standard No. 108 is that the minimu edge to edge separation distance between a turn signal lamp and a tail or stop lamp be 4 inches while the turn signal lamps themselves must have a minimum separation distance of 9 inches between their centerlines. (Your design is somewhat confusing as it depicts centerlines of stop lamps and turn signal lamps at 9 inches.) We interpret this as meaning the minimum separation distance between the edge of lighted area to be 4 inches, as depicted in 'B' in your design. Of course, final responsibility for compliance with this requirement rests on the vehicle manufacturer rather than the equipment manufacturer.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3952OpenMr. Victor Felice, President, Eurospec, Inc., 109 Treetops Circle, Nanuet, NY 10954; Mr. Victor Felice President Eurospec Inc. 109 Treetops Circle Nanuet NY 10954; Dear Mr. Felice: This responds to your letter of March 29, 1985, concerning tw aftermarket products you intend to import. The products, which you call the 'Super Klip' and the 'Klunk Klip' safety belt comfort devices, consist of plastic devices which attach to the upper torso belt anchorage. The belt webbing then goes through a wedge attached to your device. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge and close the wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt. You asked for the agency to review the devices and inform you of any comments or objections.; As background information, let me explain that the agency does not hav the authority to approve items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your devices. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards.; Your particular aftermarket products are not covered by any of ou safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your products. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a copy of which is enclosed.; The agency is concerned that a belted occupant could use your produc to reduce the effectiveness of the upper torso belt by moving the belt so close to the edge of the shoulder that the occupant could rotate out of the upper torso belt in a crash. Likewise, your product could be used to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt, which would also reduce its effectiveness. The instructions you provide with the 'Klunk Klip' do include information about how much slack to introduce into the belt and warns users not to introduce excessive slack. The instructions for the Super Klip contain no information or warnings on belt slack. We urge you to include a warning in both your instructions to advise belt users about the consequences of introducing too much slack in the belt.; I am returning the samples of your products that you enclosed with you letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5185OpenMr. Daniel L. Kokal Champagne Imports 506 Stonehurst Court Gainesville, VA 22065; Mr. Daniel L. Kokal Champagne Imports 506 Stonehurst Court Gainesville VA 22065; "Dear Mr. Kokal: This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1993 requesting use of continuous surety bonding for importation of nonconforming vehicles under the Registered Importer program. As you have informed us, ' c urrently, single entry bonds are filed with each nonconforming vehicle at 150% of the vehicle's value . . . .', and that this is expensive for the importer of Canadian vehicles which 'rarely, if ever, require safety modifications to meet U.S. standards.' You propose a continuous bond which would cover more than one vehicle, with the same level of value. The example you give is that of a continuous bond of $150,000 which would cover 10 vehicles imported together, each with a value of $10,000 as determined by the U.S. Customs Service, rather than individual bonds for 10 vehicles of $10,000 value, each bond at $15,000. Your specific suggestion is for 'the ability to import no more than 15 vehicles under a given continuous bond at 150% total vehicle value.' We are unable to implement your suggestion at present. Under 49 CFR 591.8(a), the safety compliance bond's coverage is restricted to 'only one motor vehicle.' Thus, rulemaking is required to amend paragraph 591.8(a) to permit a bond that covers more than one vehicle. In addition, Appendix A to Part 591 will have to be modified, this sets forth the terms of the bond, presently expressed in single-entry terms. As NHTSA is required to reimburse Customs for its costs in processing safety compliance bonds, that agency must necessarily be consulted to determine the impact of such a change on its operations, with a possible change in the bond processing fee imposed under Part 594. However, the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will consider the feasibility of rulemaking on this subject. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel "; |
|
ID: aiam2640OpenNoel C. Ice, Esq., Cantey, Hanger, Gooch, Munn, & Collins, 1800 First National Bank Building, Fort Worth, TX 76102; Noel C. Ice Esq. Cantey Hanger Gooch Munn & Collins 1800 First National Bank Building Fort Worth TX 76102; Dear Mr. Ice: This responds to your March 1, 1977, letter asking whether your client a company that manufactures, distributes, and sometimes installs air conditioners and cruise control units on automobiles prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale, must comply with the certification and other requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1403) requires that motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers certify that each vehicle or item of equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There are no standards applicable to air conditioners or cruise controls. Thus, your client would not be required to certify the equipment he manufactures.; Your client may, however, have certification responsibilities a prescribed in the regulation issued under Section 114 (49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*) in his capacity as installer of air conditioners or cruise controls if such installation places him within the status of 'alterer,' as that term is defined in Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the equipment, prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, either altered the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating or gross axle weight rating or was the installation of a nonreadily attachable component.; It is unlikely that the installation of an air conditioning unit woul alter the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as 'the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.' The installation of air conditioners or cruise controls may, however, constitute an installation of equipment which is not readily attachable or may exceed the gross axle weight rating. If this is the case, your client would have to comply with the requirements of Part 567.7. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise or tools must be taken into consideration.; You ask whether your client would be required to comply with 49 CF Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This part applies to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies. Since no safety standards apply to the equipment manufactured by your client, he would not be required to comply with this regulation in his capacity as an equipment manufacturer. Further, the NHTSA has determined by interpretation that vehicle alterers need not comply with Part 566. Similarly, 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, may not apply to your client, since the installation of an air conditioner or a cruise control would not make your client an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, an intermediate manufacturer, or a final stage manufacturer of vehicles as those terms are defined in the regulation (568.3). Your client might have responsibilities under Part 568.8 as a vehicle alterer, however.; You should note that if your client is considered an alterer, a defined in Part 567 or Part 568 he would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliances resulting from his installations (the Act, Section 151 *et seq*.).; If we can be of further assistance do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0387OpenMr. Robert S. Hanser, Secretary-Treasurer, Superex of Ramsey Ltd., P.O. Box 10, Ramsey, NJ 07446; Mr. Robert S. Hanser Secretary-Treasurer Superex of Ramsey Ltd. P.O. Box 10 Ramsey NJ 07446; Dear Mr. Hanser: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1971, in which you stat that you are interested in determining whether a particular child seat meets Federal requirements, and whether you may submit a sample fo (sic) us for approval.; The NHTSA does not furnish approvals, or statements that a particula product complies with an applicable Federal standard. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.) it is the responsibility of each manufacturer both to determine that his products comply with any applicable safety standard, and to certify that the product complies in accordance with section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed).; Manufacturers generally either test their products to the applicabl standards in their own facilities, or contract with an independent test laboratory to perform the appropriate tests. It is up to the manufacturer to determine what means are best suited for his particular product. You should note, however, that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a manufacturer to use due care both in manufacturing his products to comply with applicable standards, and ensuring that his certification that they comply is not false or misleading (Section 108). Violators of those requirements may be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions provided for in the Act (Sections 109 and 110).; A copy of the Act, with the sections specified above marked for you convenience, is enclosed. If you have any questions concerning its application to you, please write to us and we will be happy to answer them for you.; Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Crashworthiness, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2210OpenMr. John L. O'Connell, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles, State Street, Wethersfield, CT 06109; Mr. John L. O'Connell State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles State Street Wethersfield CT 06109; Dear Mr. O'Connell: This is in response to your letters of June 24, 1975, and May 30, 1975 regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217 and 205. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions.; In your letter of June 24, 1975, you asked whether Standard No. 21 applies to school buses, and if so, whether Connecticut's regulations concerning emergency exits for school buses are in conflict with the Federal standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, 49 CFR 571.217, was amended to specify requirements for emergency doors for school buses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 202 of the Motor Vehicle and Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392).; Since Standard No. 217, as amended, applies to school buses, effectiv October 26, 1976, any State regulations which differ are voided by S103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The Connecticut regulations are, therefore, preempted by Standard No. 217, since S103(d) requires the State regulations to be 'identical' to the Federal standard.; It should be noted, however, that while the State of Connecticut ma not issue a regulation which differs from similarly applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements, Connecticut (or any of its political subdivisions) may in its own contracts for school bus purchases require more stringent specifications, as long as the Federal minimum requirements are met.; In your letter of May 30, 1975, you asked whether Lucite AR and othe similar rigid plastics are allowed for use as side windows of buses under Standard No. 205, even though S5.1.2.1 does not list the use for 'Item 12' rigid plastics.; 'Item 12' is a classification created by the NHTSA for rigid plastic which comply with all the tests required of 'Item 5' rigid plastics as defined in ANS Z26, with the exception of the test for resistance to undiluted denatured alcohol. Paragraph S5.1.2.1, Item 12 - *Rigid plastics*, provides that 'Item 5' safety plastic materials may be used in motor vehicles *only* in the locations specified, at levels not requisite for driving visibility. These locations include 'Standee windows in buses' and 'readily removable windows'. However, there is no provision in S5.1.2.1 which allows the use of 'Item 12' plastic materials for fixed, side windows in buses.; Standard No. 205 defines readily removable windows in buses having GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds to include pushout windows and windows mounted in emergency exits that can be manually pushed out of their location in the vehicle without the use of tools, whether or not one side remains hinged to the vehicle. Rigid plastics can only be used for side windows in buses if the side window is a readily removable window as defined by S5.1.1.4 or a standee window.; I hope this letter clarifies your questions concerning Standard Nos 217 and 205. Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.; Yours truly, 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.