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 |
|---|---|
ID: aiam3808OpenMr. Don Gerken, Senior Product Engineer, Research and Development, COSCO, 2525 State Street, Columbus, IN 47201; Mr. Don Gerken Senior Product Engineer Research and Development COSCO 2525 State Street Columbus IN 47201; Dear Mr. Gerken: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Safet Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S 571.213). Specifically, you noted that your company would like to begin producing a child restraint system with a new shield design. The new shield would be substantially smaller than the shield your company currently uses. You noted that this type of shield is already being sold by other companies, and that in your restraint, the harness system, but not the shelf-like shield, would restrain the child's forward movement. A system with that characteristic would not comply with Standard No. 213.; Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 213 specifies that no fixed or movabl surface shall be in front of the child, except surfaces which restrain the child. Since your proposed new shield does not restrain the child, it is expressly prohibited from being mounted on the child restraint.; Even assuming that the proposed new shield did act to restrain th child, there is still a question of whether the shield would comply with section S5.2.2.1(c), since your drawing does not indicate which portions of the shield would restrain a child's torso and thus would need to comply with the 2-inch radius of curvature requirement.; At this time, the Enforcement Division of this agency has severa investigations pending concerning potential violations of the standard by firms using shields along the lines of the shield you propose. These investigations focus primarily on whether such shields satisfy the 2-inch radius of curvature requirement of section S5.2.2.1(c) of Standard No. 213.; Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information o have further questions on this matter.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1835OpenMr. Donald W. Taylor, Volvo of America Corp., Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. Donald W. Taylor Volvo of America Corp. Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Taylor: This responds to Volvo of America Corporations's (sic) March 3, 1975 question whether a braking system which employs air pressure modulated by the vehicle operator to provide the energy used to actuate the brakes is an air brake system subject to Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*.; The answer to this question is yes. We do not agree that such a syste could qualify as a hydraulic brake system under the definition found in Standard No. 105-75, *Hydraulic brake systems*. That definition requires that a hydraulic brake system employ hydraulic fluid as a medium for transmitting force 'from a service brake control to the service brake', which is not the case in the system you describe. The system in question appears to be what is popularly known as an 'air over hydraulic' system. With regard to such systems, NHTSA has stated in a preamble to the air brake standard: 'It should be noted that the term 'air brake system' as defined in this standard applies to the brake configuration commonly referred to as 'air over hydraulic,' in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability.' (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0727OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA, 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1972, inquiring whethe temporary covering which is used to prevent soiling of upholstery during production, transportation, and sales demonstration must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302.; Whether the material must comply with the standard dependsupon (sic whether it is likely to be used in a significant number of cases by the purchaser as part of the motor vehicle. You have stated that the purpose of the material is to 'prevent soiling during production, transportation, and sales demonstrations.' It is important that this intent be carried out in practice, if the material is not to be considered vehicle interior material subject to the standard. Two criteria which would be considered in determining whether the material is covered by the standard are (1) whether it is placed in the vehicle in a way that its use after purchase is unlikely, and (2) what steps the manufacturer has taken to see that it is removed before sale to the purchaser. If Blue Bird does take steps to ensure that the material will not be used as a seat cover by the purchaser, then the material would not be required to conform to the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5525OpenMs. Merridy R. Gottlieb 4 Duchess Court Baltimore, MD 21237; Ms. Merridy R. Gottlieb 4 Duchess Court Baltimore MD 21237; Dear Ms. Gottlieb: This responds to your letter of February 14, 1995 requesting an 'exemption' from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow a business to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter states: I am disabled and need 3-4' of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent for long periods of time, I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all the way out, there is no pain at all. You state that you were told that this modification cannot be done as it would 'interfere with the functionality of the air bag.' In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below. I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted an exemption from NHTSA to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. Moving a seat could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in a vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle installed air bags as the means of complying with Standard No. 208's requirement. Your modifier is concerned that the modification of the seat would 'make inoperative' the air bag. I would like to note that accident data would suggest that a person is at greater risk of injury from an air bag from sitting too close to the air bag, rather than further away from the air bag. However, I understand that, due to the dynamic testing requirement, the modifier will be unable to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 208's requirements. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the 'make inoperative' prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0377OpenMr. M. Grossman, U.S. Factory Representative, Automobiles Peugeot, 300 Kuller Road, Clifton, NJ 07015; Mr. M. Grossman U.S. Factory Representative Automobiles Peugeot 300 Kuller Road Clifton NJ 07015; Dear Mr. Grossman:#This is in reply to your letter of June 2 requesting an interpretation of Paragraph S4.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101.#You may mark your windshield wiper control, and lighting - windshield washing control in the manner indicated in your letter. We do not consider the washing control a wiping control requiring identification as such merely because the wiper is momentarily activated when the washer system is in operation.#Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5175OpenMr. Jim Keizer 1504 Locust Street Hull, IA 51239; Mr. Jim Keizer 1504 Locust Street Hull IA 51239; Dear Mr. Keizer: This responds to your letter of April 13, 1993 requesting information on the legal responsibilities of businesses that repack or replace air bags in automobiles. I am enclosing copies of five letters which address various issues related to replacement or repair of air bags. The January 19, 1990, letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad addresses the issue of possible legal obligations to repair a deployed air bag following a collision. The May 13, 1991, and June 11, 1991, letters to Mr. Stephen Mamakas address issues specifically related to the repair of deployed air bags. The March 26, 1993, letters to Mr. Steven C. Friedman and Mr. Jay Lee address issues related to retrofit or replacement air bags. I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam1136OpenChairman Judson Branch, National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council, Washington, D.C. 20590; Chairman Judson Branch National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council Washington D.C. 20590; Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to the March 15 resolution of the National Motor Vehicl Safety Advisory Council urging removal of the legal barriers to the introduction of passive restraint systems, I can report that the Department has taken a major step in the direction the Council urges. The proposed test dummy regulation, published April 2, is intended to permit manufacturers to produce vehicles with passive restraint systems under either of the passive options available before passive restraints become mandatory. Upon adoption of the proposed regulation and of the corresponding amendment to Standard 208, the first barrier addressed in the Council's resolution will be removed.; The Council's second concern is with the seat belt installation laws o the States. It would be unfortunate if these laws interfere with the evaluation of fully passive restraint systems. The department will take such steps as seem advisable to remove any legal obstruction to the manufacture and use of vehicles with fully passive systems. We expect to announce our position on this point shortly.; Sincerely,(sic) |
|
ID: aiam4334OpenThe Honorable William Proxmire, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; The Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Proxmire: This is in reply to your recent inquiry on behalf of your constituent Todd Suer of Janesville.; Mr. Suer, in his letter to you of April 15, 1987, refers to cars 'tha have extra clear head lights besides the ones that are built in ' and asks if there is a law against them.; We are not familiar with the lighting equipment that Mr. Suer mentions It is not part of the front lighting equipment required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It appear to be aftermarket, accessory equipment, and as such, its use is subject to regulations under State law. We suggest that Mr. Suer direct his complaint to State or local authorities.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1566OpenMr. Frank Schoen, 8022 Cabot Street, Houston, TX 77028; Mr. Frank Schoen 8022 Cabot Street Houston TX 77028; Dear Mr. Schoen: This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1974, inquiring as t what information must be included in a bill of sale upon the transfer of a motorcycle.; The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires that written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer. The disclosure statement need not, however, be included as part of the bill of sale and may be executed to the buyer as a separate document. If Northline Honda failed to comply with this disclosure requirement, a civil remedy in the amount of $1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater, may be available to you under section 409 of the Act, if the violation was committed with the intent to defraud.; Section 403 of the Act makes it unlawful for any person to disconnect reset, or alter the odometer of a vehicle with the intent to change the number of miles indicated thereon. If Northline Honda violated this section with the intent to defraud, section 409 of the Act would provide you with the same civil remedy as noted above.; One way to determine if such an alteration has occurred is to compar the current mileage with that indicated on the disclosure statement provided to Northline Honda by the motorcycle's prior owner. If Northline has no such document you might attempt to find out who the prior owner was and contact him about the mileage. A mechanic might also check out the motorcycle to see if there is any evidence indicating that the odometer has been tampered with or that the cycle has travelled more miles than the odometer registers.; On the basis of the information you have supplied, I suggest that yo contact an attorney about the possibility of bringing an action against Northline Honda. I am enclosing relevant portions of the Act and the odometer disclosure requirements for your use.; If you are in need of any further information, please do not hesitat to let us know.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4764OpenMr. William Waltz Wagner Division Cooper Industries, Inc. 155 Algonquin Parkway Whippany, NJ 07981; Mr. William Waltz Wagner Division Cooper Industries Inc. 155 Algonquin Parkway Whippany NJ 07981; Dear Mr. Waltz: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, l990 stating that Wagner Division 'would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a 'Determination of Inconsequentiality' for non-compliance.' Specifically, Wagner wishes to manufacture round sealed beam headlamps (not 'bulbs' as you call it) for Lectric Limited, a small parts business geared towards the antique automobile hobby. The headlamps are intended for use on 'antique automobiles'. We understand that term to mean any automobile manufactured in l940 and subsequent model years that was originally equipped with round sealed beam headlamps. Although the headlamps would be designed to conform to current specifications, those of SAE Standard J579c, the word 'top' would be used on the 7-inch diameter headlamp instead of the designation '2CI' (you mean '2D1'), the numeral '1' for '1C1' on the single beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp, and the numeral '2' for '2C1' on the dual beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp. The lamps would not bear 'DOT' identification. Lectric Limited is willing to 'ink stamp' DOT, 2Dl, 1C1, and 2C1 'on either the face and or the rear' of each headlamp so that they would not be mistaken for those conforming to SAE J579a, and to print instructions for purchasers explaining the difference. Lectric Limited is also willing to insure that the headlamps are marketed only through antique auto specialty retailers. First, let me explain that your request cannot be considered as one for a determination of inconsequentiality. These determinations are made after-the-fact in order to determine whether a manufacturer must fulfill statutory obligations which include replacement, repurchase, or repair of the already-manufactured noncompliant product. What you seek is permission to produce motor vehicle equipment that fails to comply with labeling requirements. Unfortunately, the agency has no exemption provisions which can address this issue. We have authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicles from compliance for a temporary period, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, on either a temporary or permanent basis. Further, we cannot waive the marking requirements of sections S7.2 and S7.3 of Standard No. 108, even for the limited purpose and subject to the restrictions you discuss. After due consideration of the matter, we believe that you have no choice other than to conform to the marking requirements of Standard No. 108. Although neither the marking nor the performance of J579c headlamps replicates that of J579a headlamps, I hope that auto enthusiasts will be willing to accept the marking that goes with the improved performance. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.