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: aiam3232OpenMr. Carl G. F. Pedersen, Aveco Trucks of North America, Inc., P.O. Box 1102, Blue Bell, PA 19422; Mr. Carl G. F. Pedersen Aveco Trucks of North America Inc. P.O. Box 1102 Blue Bell PA 19422; Dear Mr. Pedersen:#This is in response to your request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. You described a bulb check button which could be activated at any time by merely pushing it in, but which when released would be automatically deactivated. You asked whether the possible activation of this button at any time would take it out of compliance with section 5.3.1 of Safety Standard 101-80.#This section states that 'a telltale shall not emit light except...during a bulb check upon vehicle starting.' This provision was intended to prevent the driver from accidently (sic) leaving the bulb check control activated and thereby creating a situation where a defective functioning of the vehicle would go unnoticed by the driver. Since the bulb check control that you described cannot accidently (sic) be left in the on position since it is deactivated when the driver releases it, section 5.3.1 of Safety Standard 101-80 would not operate so as to prohibit use of this device.#I hope that you have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending you this response.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2970OpenMr. James Tydings, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 1408 Courtesy Road, P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. James Tydings Thomas Built Buses Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your February 28, 1979, letter asking about th remanufacturing of vehicles using old chassis and new bodies. In particular, you ask whether these vehicles must comply with the new safety standards.; The remanufacturing operation that you mention need not comply with th new safety standards. Such a remanufactured vehicle may need to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis. Otherwise, there might be a rendering inoperative of the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards. I am enclosing a copy of an interpretation that discusses the remanufacturing issue.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3662OpenMr. John C. Dobbs, Project Manager, E-Z-Go Textron, P.O. Box 388, Augusta, GA 30913-2699; Mr. John C. Dobbs Project Manager E-Z-Go Textron P.O. Box 388 Augusta GA 30913-2699; Dear Mr. Dobbs: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1983, telling of you wish to build a four-wheeled light weight traffic enforcement vehicle similar to a three-wheeled machine manufactured by Cushman. You have asked whether you have to meet passenger car safety standards 'or can we obtain a waiver for this vehicle only to comply with motorcycle safety standards?' You have enclosed a brochure on the vehicle you propose to modify, Textron's GX-800.; I am sorry to say that only vehicles with three wheels or less ar defined as 'motorcycles' for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Years ago, the agency totally excluded from the application of those standards four-wheeled vehicles with a curb weight of 1000 pounds or less such as the GX-800. However, that exclusion was terminated in the early 1970's.; A manufacturer of 10,000 vehicles or less per year may petition for temporary exemption from any safety standard where immediate compliance would cause substantial economic hardship. However, he must make a good faith effort to bring the vehicle into compliance during the exemption period. Although this would appear impossible with your vehicle because of its physical limitations, the agency has in the past exempted replicas of 1900-style vehicles where full compliance was manifestly not feasible. I enclose a copy of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 555 which sets out the exemption procedures. If your planned vehicle would have a cargo box, similar to the one on the Cushman vehicle, your vehicle could be considered a 'truck' for compliance purposes.; As a car or truck, your vehicle would also have to comply with Federa fuel economy and emissions standards. Exemptions from fuel economy standards may be sought under 49 CFR Part 525. As to the emissions standards, you should write the Environmental Protection Agency.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3398OpenMr. Seymour S. Weinblatt, Weinblatt & Knee, Counsellors at Law, Five Main Street, P.O. Box 985, Flemington, NJ 08822; Mr. Seymour S. Weinblatt Weinblatt & Knee Counsellors at Law Five Main Street P.O. Box 985 Flemington NJ 08822; Dear Mr. Weinblatt: This responds to your letter of March 5, 1981, in which you requested copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. You are apparently trying to determine what types of glazing material may be used in 'caps' installed on truck bodies.; Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazin materials to be used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' Z26.1-1966 (ANSZ26). Copies of both standards are enclosed. ANS Z26 and Standard No. 205 list 13 'Items' or types of glazing that vary in terms of performance tests each item must pass and the locations in which each type of glazing may be used. While the meaning of the word 'cap' as used in your letter is somewhat unclear, we presume you are referring to a 'pickup cover.' A 'pickup cover' is defined in paragraph S4 of Standard No. 205 as a camper having a roof and sides but without a floor, designed to be mounted on and removable from the cargo area of a truck by the user. All 13 items of glazing may be used in pickup covers. However, some items (e.g., Item 6) may not be used in forward-facing windows, and others (e.g., Item 5) may not be used at levels requisite for driving visibility.; Certification and marking requirements for glazing are found i paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0367OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, General Manager, Toyota Motor Co., Ltd., Factory Representative Office, Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ, 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima General Manager Toyota Motor Co. Ltd. Factory Representative Office Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W Tome, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning an interpretation relative to the determination of visibility of lamps.; Both of your interpretations are correct. The location of lamps an reflective devices is determined with the vehicle at its curb weight, which is the weight of a motor vehicle with standard equipment, maximum capacity of engine, fuel, oil, and coolant, and, if so equipped, air conditioning and additional weight optional engine.; The overall width is determined with 'doors and windows closed' per th interpretation of 32 F.R. 8088, June 21, 1967.; The visibility requirements for lamps and reflective devices wil therefore be determined with trunk lids, tail gates, hoods, and rear gates in the normal driving, or closed, position.; Sincerely,E. T. Driver, Director, Offices of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5165OpenMr. Arvind V. Rajan Vice President, Marketing and Planning Solectria Corporation 27 Jason Street Arlington, MA 02174; Mr. Arvind V. Rajan Vice President Marketing and Planning Solectria Corporation 27 Jason Street Arlington MA 02174; "Dear Mr. Rajan: We have received your letter of March 30, 1993, askin for confirmation that Solectria Corporation is permitted to import nonconforming motor vehicles for conversion to electric power, provided that the vehicles will be exported immediately following conversion. The vehicle you wish to import is the Suzuki Swift, similar to the Suzuki Swift that has been certified by its manufacturer for sale in the United States, except that the steering column is on the right hand side, and that it has not been certified. There is no section of the importation provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) that directly permit the importation of nonconforming vehicles for purposes of repair or alteration. Obviously, the failure of such vehicles to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards poses no risk of traffic accidents, or deaths and injuries resulting from such accidents if these vehicles are never driven on the public roads. In these instances, the agency tries to provide an interpretation of the Act that is consistent with both the purpose of the Act and the facts at hand. Section 108(b)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)), in effect, allows importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle 'intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle . . . and on the outside of the container, if any which is exported.' As the legislative history of this section makes clear, ' t his legislation does not purport to establish standards for motor vehicles . . . to be used entirely outside the United States.' (House Report 1776, page 24). Section 108(b)(3) has been implemented by 49 CFR 591.5(c). We believe that, under the facts as described in your letter, it would be appropriate for Solectria to import nonconforming Suzuki Swifts for conversion to electric power pursuant to paragraph 591.5(c). The vehicles have not been imported for use on the American roads, but solely for export following their conversion. We assume that Solectria will label the converted vehicles and their containers, if applicable, in accordance with the regulatory requirement. If we may help you in any other way, please let us know. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0737OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Assn., 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Assn. 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of June 9 asking whether pole trailer must be certified.; The answer is no. According to 49 CFR S 567.2(a), only motor vehicle to which one or more Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable must be certified. The only Federal standard currently in effect that applies to 'trailers', Standard No. 108, specifically exempts 'pole trailers' from its applicability and therefore pole trailers need not be certified.; Your letter of February 23 regarding clearance lamps and identificatio lamps is still under consideration and we hope to provide a response in the near future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3818OpenMr. Jacob Sheeskin, Sheeskin, Hillman & Lazar, P.C., 6110 Executive Boulevard, P.O. Box 2186, Rockville, MD 20852; Mr. Jacob Sheeskin Sheeskin Hillman & Lazar P.C. 6110 Executive Boulevard P.O. Box 2186 Rockville MD 20852; RE: your file 3189/001:11 Dear Mr. Sheeskin: This responds to your letter of March 7, 1984, concerning discussion between your client and the Maryland State Police about the application of tinting or sun screening materials to vehicle glazing materials. This office has sent two letters of interpretation concerning the application of glazing materials to the Maryland State Police. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's letters of December 20, 1983 and April 3, 1984 and the Maryland States Police's original request for an interpretation.; As stated in our letter of April 3, 1984, the application of tintin materials to glazing does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the render inoperative provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. To violate section 108(a)(2)(A), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops that install tinting materials must knowingly install materials which render inoperative the glazing material's compliance with Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, a motor vehicle repair shop would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) if it knowingly installed on a passenger car's window a tinting material which would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance or luminous transmittance requirements of the standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1825OpenTo: Docket 74-10, Notice 10; To: Docket 74-10 Notice 10; Memorandum Subject: Meeting with TEBDA re Standard 121 From: Assistant Chief Counsel On March 18, 1975, representatives of the Department met with officer of the Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Association (TEBDA) and other industry representatives, concerning problems with compliance with Standard 121, Air Brake Systems, by companies in the business of adding axles to chassis-cabs. Present for DOT: Messrs. Stoney, Constantino, Schultz, Dyson, Herlihy. Present for TEBDA and industry: Messrs. Wendelberger, Bosbyshell, Myers, Gibson, McCullough, and Pieratt.; The basic problem presented by TEBDA was that the companies that ad 'tag' or 'pusher' axles to chassis- cabs do not have the facilities to test the vehicles for conformity to the performance requirements of Standard 121, and therefore feel they have no way to certify conformity to the standard. Representatives of a manufacturer of the axles, who were present, stated that they were prepared to make calculations concerning their axles that would indicate that when used properly, they would not take vehicles out of conformity to the standard. TEBDA requested a forgiveness period during which actual road tests would not be required.; Departmental representatives said that under NHTSA interpretations an opinions of long standing, actual road tests are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard 121 or other standards, where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. The agency has recognized that small companies such as many of the final-stage and intermediate manufacturers represented by the TEBDA, cannot be expected to test on the same scale or by the same methods as large integrated automotive manufacturers. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assembliers are expected to use statutory 'due care' to see that their products conform. Therefore, the DOT representatives stated, it does not appear at this point that any changes in the standard's application were necessary to achieve what the industry representatives wanted, and the NHTSA would reiterate this position in response to requests for interpretation.; Richard B. Dyson |
|
ID: aiam5535OpenMr. Valter Sforca 84 Thomas Street Newark, NJ 07114; Mr. Valter Sforca 84 Thomas Street Newark NJ 07114; Dear Mr. Sforca: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1995 asking if there is a regulation that applies to the importation of an 'air equalizer for tire pressure.' Although you have not described your device, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to equipment installed in motor vehicles that regulate the air pressure of tires. If you are asked by the U.S. Customs Service to execute an HS-7 Declaration Form at the port of entry, you may check Box 1, declaring that the equipment was manufactured on a date when no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard was in effect. Because this device is motor vehicle equipment, and because you apparently would be its importer, you would be responsible for notifying buyers and recalling it if either you or we decided that it contained a safety related defect. We don't understand your phrase 'the system have a safety valve for the air brakes the truck, for a properly stop'. However, if the 'air equalizer' is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that person must not knowingly make inoperative any part of a truck's air brake system by installing the air equalizer. I am enclosing a copy of a letter concerning what appears to be a similar device, which will explain this more fully. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with whom you spoke previously (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
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.