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: aiam4948OpenMr. Robert A. Rogers, Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9015; Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015; "Dear Mr. Rogers: This responds to your request that this agenc determine that the new antitheft device to be installed on the MY 1992 General Motors Pontiac Bonneville line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Pontiac Bonneville vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. The agency has reviewed the changes to the system and for the following reasons concludes that the differences between the original system and one installed on the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville constitute a de minimis change. As you are aware, the Pontiac Bonneville car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because General Motors showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This antitheft device is known as the 'PASS-KEY' antitheft system. The exemption was issued on April 4, 1991, and appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14413). As was stated in the April 1991 Federal Register notice, the 'PASS-KEY' antitheft system utilizes an ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. Before a vehicle can be started, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a fixed resistance in the decoder module. In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1992, two design changes were made in the 'PASS-KEY' antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Pontiac Bonneville. The new system on the Bonneville is known as 'PASS-KEY II,' and differs from 'PASS-KEY' as follows. First, in 'PASS-KEY II,' if a key other than the one with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes plus or minus eighteen seconds. In 'PASS-KEY,' this shut down period is two to four minutes. Second, if, during the time the decoder module has shut down in 'PASS-KEY II,' trial and error attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer will not reset to zero, as is the case with 'PASS-KEY.' GM states that this difference in functions will provide a similar level of performance as 'PASS-KEY' since the 'PASS-KEY II' module, while shut down, will ignore further attempts to start the system by means other than use of a key with the proper resistance pellet. Any further unauthorized attempt after the initial three minute shut down time will result in the module shutting down again. After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. In addition to providing some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, 'PASS-KEY II' also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for General Motors to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2). If General Motors does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter for MY 1992, we request that this agency be notified of such decisions. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking /"; |
|
ID: aiam0458OpenMr. Orlando Rodriguez, Export Manager, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Orlando Rodriguez Export Manager Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Rodriguez: Secretary Volpe has asked me to reply to your letter of October 18 1971, concerning the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 in the territories and possessions of the United States.; The Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issue thereunder apply in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, and American Samoa. Motor vehicles, including buses, manufactured for sale and imported into those areas must meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Only one standard applicable to buses, No. 103, *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems*, specifically does not apply to buses manufactured for sale outside the Continental United States. There are no Federal standards applicable to school bus bodies, so that the wooden bodied buses in American Samoa, of which you spoke, are not prohibited by the Act. School buses manufactured for sale in Puerto Rico are required, however, to have a warning light system.; I hope this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam2465OpenMr. John J. Giesguth, Director, Bureau of Pupil Transportation, Division of Field Services, Department of Education, P.O. Box 2019, Trenton, NJ 08625; Mr. John J. Giesguth Director Bureau of Pupil Transportation Division of Field Services Department of Education P.O. Box 2019 Trenton NJ 08625; Dear Mr. Giesguth: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1976, requestin information on the legal aspects of the change in the definition of 'school bus.'; Effective April 1, 1977, the definition of 'school bus' in Title 49 o the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR S 571.3) will read as follows:; >>>'School bus' means a bus that is sold or introduced in interstat commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.<<<; The definition of 'bus' will continue to read as follows: >>>'Bus' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer designed for carrying more than 10 persons.<<<; The new definition of school bus will include many of the van- typ vehicles that are classified as Type II school vehicles under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17. If a Type II van is designed to carry more than 10 persons, and if it is sold for purposes that include 'carrying students to and from school or related events,' it will have to be sold with all the equipment specified for school buses by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It will therefore have to have school bus lights as specified by the standard on lighting (49 CFR S571.108).; Our experience with the comparative accident patterns of Type I an Type II buses does not justify the use of different lighting systems for the two types. In view of Congress's expressed desire to have the school bus standards uniformly applicable to buses of all sizes, we consider it appropriate to apply the lighting standard to all school buses.; We understand your concern with the effects that the newly applicabl requirements will have on your purchase of Type II vans. However, we are persuaded that the requirements are reasonable and that they will protect school children.; If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, John W. Snow, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam0008OpenMr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237 Phoenix, AZ 80058; Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street #14-237 Phoenix AZ 80058; Dear Mr. Dembecki: This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991 asking for an 'evaluation' of your 'Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: 'complete' one and two bulb units 'for l984 and older vehicles', and one and two 'electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.' In your opinion, 'since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed.' We understand that your 'complete' unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the 'electronic module' intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer. Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. 108 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. 108 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard. With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. 108 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps. Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2035OpenMr. Jerry W. McNeil, Director of Engineering, American Trailers, Inc., 1500 Exchange Avenue, Box 26568, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126; Mr. Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering American Trailers Inc. 1500 Exchange Avenue Box 26568 Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73126; Dear Mr. McNeil: #This responds to your letter of August 12, 1975 concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to an anchor coupling. #You enclosed a diagram depicting the installation of two of these couplings, and suggested that they are not subject to the labeling requirements of the standard. This interpretation is correct. 'Brake hose end fitting' is defined in Standard No. 106-74 as: #>>>a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose.<<< #The anchor couplings which you have described are attached to the ends of completed brake hose assemblies, rather than to the ends of brake hoses. Therefore, they are not 'brake hose end fittings' subject to the standard's requirements. #It appears from your letter that you might not consider the nylon tubing to be 'brake hose'. If the nylon tubing is flexible, However, such an interpretation would be incorrect. 'Brake hose' is defined in the standard as: #>>>a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.<<<# Thus flexible chassis plumbing and other flexible conduits, in addition to rubber brake hoses, are subject to the standard's requirements. #Sincerely Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0767OpenMr. George J. Natinsky, Normark Corporation, 4839 Memphis Street, Dallas, Texas 75206; Mr. George J. Natinsky Normark Corporation 4839 Memphis Street Dallas Texas 75206; Dear Mr. Natinsky: This is in response to your letter of June 26, 1972, to the Office o the regional administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the Bond Bug.; For purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the Bond bug i classified as a 'motorcycle' since it is a 'motor vehicle...designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground'. The only Federal standard currently applicable to it is Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*. Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Brake Systems* will apply to motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1974. I enclose a copy of each for your information. The new standard on motorcycle controls and displays, No. 123, does not apply to a motorcycle equipped with a steering wheel.; If you are interested in importing this vehicle on a commercial basis suggest that you write us directly for information on obligations of the manufacturer and importer concerning consumer information and safety-related defect notification.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson. Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3848OpenPaul Escobosa, Esq., Dinkelspiel, Donovan & Reder, One Embarcadero Center - 27th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111; Paul Escobosa Esq. Dinkelspiel Donovan & Reder One Embarcadero Center - 27th Floor San Francisco CA 94111; Dear Mr. Escobosa: In reply to your letter of May 22, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my office this is to advise you that you will find the truck air brake standard at 49 CFR 571.121, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; As Mr. Vinson informed you, the 'Autostop' braking device about whic you inquired is not directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle equipment or vehicle standard. However, its installation on a truck conforming to Standard No. 121 must not render the air brake system inoperative in whole or in part, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). If installation occurs before the truck is delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the installer is required to attach a label to the truck in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7 that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; In any event, as an item of motor vehicle equipment, the 'Autostop' i subject to the notification and remedy provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1411 *et seq*. in the event that either its manufacturer or this agency determines that it contains or creates a safety-related defect.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1875OpenMr. Jeffrey A. Burt, Arnold and Porter, 1229 Nineteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Jeffrey A. Burt Arnold and Porter 1229 Nineteenth Street NW. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Burt: This is in response to your letter of April 22 regarding a propose defect notification letter by the Whittaker Corporation.; In our opinion, the proposed letter does not comply with the defec notification regulation (49 CFR, Part 577) and section 153 of the 1974 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The specific areas of nonconformance are:; >>>1. The second sentence must be stated in the form and order a required by section 577.4(b), that is, you must add 'defect--which relates to motor vehicle safety--exists.'; 2. The first sentence in the fourth paragraph referring to the fac that no accidents have been reported could be construed as a disclaimer, and is therefore prohibited by section 577.6.; 3. Since owners may inspect these wheels themselves in lieu of having dealer perform the inspection, it is necessary to provide the owner with a return post card so the owner can certify that the wheels were inspected and do not contain a defect or were exchanged for new wheels.; 4. It is necessary to inform the owner that in the event th manufacturer, dealer or distributor is unable or fails to remedy the defect without charge, the owner may notify the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590. This is required by section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment.; If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr James Murray of my staff at 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5565OpenThe Honorable Ken Calvert Member, United States House of Representatives 3400 Central Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92506; The Honorable Ken Calvert Member United States House of Representatives 3400 Central Avenue Suite 200 Riverside CA 92506; "Dear Mr. Calvert: Thank you for your letter on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Alexander H. Patnode of Lake Elsinore, concerning an engine stand your constituent purchased from Pep Boys. Mr. Patnode asked for assistance after the engine stand caused the engine to fall, injuring his ankle. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers the engine stand to be 'motor vehicle equipment,' subject to our regulation. NHTSA has authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. section 30102(a)(7) defines 'motor vehicle equipment' in relevant part as: (A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured, (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part or component, or as an accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle... (emphasis added) Although an engine stand is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle, it would be considered an 'accessory' to a motor vehicle. NHTSA has typically used two criteria in determining whether a product is an 'accessory.' The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. Expected use is determined by considering product advertising, product labeling, the type of store that sells the equipment, and information about how the product is used. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by, ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, it is deemed an 'accessory.' We have determined the engine stand is an accessory, and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Applying the two criteria to the engine stand, (1) the engine stand is intended to be used in the maintenance of motor vehicle engines, and (2) assuming the stand was new when sold to Mr. Patnode, it was intended to be acquired and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. We have searched our files by computer for reported complaints about engine stands, and for manufacturers' service bulletins and recalls. The search was conducted according to manufacturer (Rally) and equipment type (motor vehicle equipment: jacks, and other). A summary of the search results is enclosed. We found no reported instance of an injury caused by an engine stand, or of a manufacturer's issuing a service bulletin or recall because of an engine stand problem. We will keep a copy of Mr. Patnode's letter in our files on reported complaints. In the future, the letter may be helpful in establishing a pattern of safety-related concerns caused by the type of engine stand that resulted in Mr. Patnode's injury. I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Harleigh Ewell, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Regulatory Affairs Division U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207-0001"; |
|
ID: aiam0337OpenMr. Herbert A. Strum, P.E., 830 Tostenabe Lane, North Muskegon, MI 49445; Mr. Herbert A. Strum P.E. 830 Tostenabe Lane North Muskegon MI 49445; Dear Mr. Strum: In your letter of April 20, 1971, to Robert L. Carter you ask fo copies of regulations governing 'the construction, equipping, and operation of private motor coaches.' It is our understanding that you wish to construct a vehicle for your own use upon a standard Dodge M-300 motor coach chassis.; A motor coach is categorized as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose copies of the following safety standards which would apply to the motor coach body that you wish to construct, and with which you, as a 'manufacturer' of a motor vehicle, must ensure compliance.; >>>102 - Transmission Shift Lever, etc. (Note S3.2) 103 - Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems 107 - Reflecting Surfaces 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associate (sic) Equipment 111 - Rearview Mirrors 205 - Glazing Materials 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components 208 - Seat Belt Installation (effective July 1, 1971) 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies (effective September 1, 1971, th requirements in effect until then apply only to equipment manufacturers)<<<; This agency has no regulations governing the 'operation' of a privat motor home, however, Michigan may have special provisions as a prerequisite to the registration of a motor home.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.