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: aiam1623OpenMr. J. W. Boyd, Manager, Government & Industry, Tech. Relations, Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corporation, P. O. Box 1109, Buffalo, NY 14240; Mr. J. W. Boyd Manager Government & Industry Tech. Relations Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corporation P. O. Box 1109 Buffalo NY 14240; Dear Mr. Boyd: This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1974, askin several questions relating to our tire identification regulation as it applies to Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation (England).; When tires are manufactured for a brand name owner, as they will be i your case, you are correct in saying the first grouping in the identification number must contain the manufacturer's identification (DD, in your case) and the third grouping must contain up to four letters designating the brand name owner. Pursuant to section 574.5(c) you must maintain a detailed record of the brand name owner code used.; Pursuant to section 574.7(c), the brand name owner must maintain th information required by section 574.7 of the regulation. Therefore, no agreement between Dunlop and Armstrong is necessary.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4972OpenD. E. Dawkins, Acting Director Automotive Safety Planning and Compliance Product Strategy and Regulatory Affairs Office Chrysler Corporation CIMS 414-01-22 12000 Chrysler Drive Highland Park, MI 48288-0857; D. E. Dawkins Acting Director Automotive Safety Planning and Compliance Product Strategy and Regulatory Affairs Office Chrysler Corporation CIMS 414-01-22 12000 Chrysler Drive Highland Park MI 48288-0857; "Dear Mr. Dawkins: This responds to the petition dated September 30 1991, that Mr. Kittle submitted on behalf of Chrysler Corporation seeking temporary exemption for the TEVan from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of low emission motor vehicles. The petition indicates (page 4) that exemption is sought for four l989 Dodge Caravans, converted to electric power, that 'were manufactured for test and evaluation'. We understand that this conversion occurred after completion of the manufacture of the vans, and that the conversion was performed by a subsidiary of Chrysler. If an exemption is granted, the petition states that 'one or more of the vehicles will be titled and sold for ongoing endurance evaluation.' Finally, we understand that the TEvans are currently in the possession of the Electric Power Research Institute in California for evaluation, and that presumably they are being driven on the public roads. We regret the delay in responding to Mr. Kittle's letter. The petition represents a rare instance in which a manufacturer has petitioned for an exemption for a vehicle whose manufacture has been completed, and which has been in use. The purpose of an exemption is to allow a manufacturer to engage in conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically, the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction, or importation into the United States of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and which does not bear a certification of compliance with those standards. With respect to the four TEVans for which petition has been made, it appears that they have already been introduced into interstate commerce without a certification of compliance (or, if bearing the certification of the original vehicle, a certification that is false and misleading in a material respect, a further violation of the Act). Any exemption by the Administrator could not cover conduct violative of the Act that has already occurred. However, we have concluded that the Administrator may grant an exemption to vehicles, which would apply to conduct that would violate the Act, but which has not occurred. As Chrysler seeks an exemption in order to sell the TEVans, or to offer them for sale, the Administrator's exemption authority may be exercised to permit Chrysler to do so, after the procedural requirements have been followed. The petition meets our requirements for form and content, and a notice requesting public comment is being prepared for publication in the Federal Register. We shall notify you when the Administrator has reached a decision. If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5660OpenErika Z. Jones, Esq. Mayer, Brown & Platt 2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006-1882; Erika Z. Jones Esq. Mayer Brown & Platt 2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington DC 20006-1882; Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your letter of November 27, 199 concerning the requirement in S4.4 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. That section provides that: Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect. You requested confirmation that this requirement would not apply to a seat that was equipped with a folding seat back to convert the seat to a bed. You are correct. NHTSA interprets this requirement as applying only to positions that do not qualify as designated seating positions under 49 CFR 571.3. Therefore, 'designated seating positions' that convert to a non-seating use do not have to comply with the labeling requirement of S4.4. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0198OpenMr. Yoshio Horii, Manager, Lighting Engineering Department, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd., 5-10-18, Higashi-Gotanda, Shinagawa-Ku, Tokyo 141, Japan; Mr. Yoshio Horii Manager Lighting Engineering Department Ichikoh Industries Ltd. 5-10-18 Higashi-Gotanda Shinagawa-Ku Tokyo 141 Japan; Dear Mr. Horii: Thank you for your letter of December 16, 1969, concerning th relationship between performance requirements of Standard No. 108 and the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards in Standard No. 108.; Public Law 89- 563 requires that the motor vehicle safety standards b stated in terms of what is to be accomplished rather than in terms of specific designs, and that they be objective, reasonable, practicable, and meet the need for motor vehicle safety. In addition, the law required that the initial safety standards be based on *existing* standards.; Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 was based on th *existing* SAE standards as specified in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108. In some instances, these specified SAE standards in turn subreference other SAE standards that are design oriented, particularly the subreferenced standards on bulbs, bulb sockets and sealed beam headlamp units.; As provided by an interpretation (copy enclosed) issued on August 12 1968, entitled, 'Bulbs and Bulb Sockets,' bulbs conforming to Table I of subreferenced SAE J573 and bulb sockets conforming to subreferenced SAE J567 *need not* be used in lamp assemblies meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108. Therefore, as an example, tail lamps need meet only the requirements of SAE J585c (including color test in accordance with SAE J578a) when tested in accordance with the specified Sections of subreferenced SAE J575c.; The above interpretation does not apply to sealed beam headlamps Paragraph S3.1.1 and Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 specify that headlamps shall be designed to conform to SAE J579a and J580a. These specified standards in turn subreference SAE J573b and J571b. The dimensional requirements of SAE J571b serve a need for safety in that replacement sealed beam units are readily available, and standardization of inspection equipment and procedures is possible.; In summary, the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards ar applicable except as specifically provided by the enclosed interpretation.; With reference to the last paragraph in your letter, it is recognize that a manufacturer of motor vehicles may, as part of his contractual relationship with a supplier, require that the supplier certify conformance of the items provided by the supplier. Currently Public Law 89-563 does not require Ichikoh to certify conformance to Standard No. 108 of the lighting equipment it provides. However, an amendment to the standard has been proposed which would make the standard directly applicable to certain items of lighting equipment. This proposal would require Ichikoh to certify conformance, but only if Ichokoh (sic) were shipping such items directly to distributors and dealers in the United States. I enclose a copy of this proposal for your information.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam0462OpenMr. K. Krueger, Technical Development, Liason (sic) Engineer, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. K. Krueger Technical Development Liason (sic) Engineer Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Krueger: This will serve to confirm your understanding that a retractor capabl of meeting the requirements for a vehicle-sensitive emergency-locking retractor under Standard No. 209 conforms to the Standard even though it is provided with a back-up webbing-sensitive retractor that locks only at webbing accelerations greater than those specified in Standard No. 209.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5230OpenMr. Reuven Koter Director Baran Advanced Technologies Ltd. P.O. Box 3153 Beer Sheva 84131 Israel; Mr. Reuven Koter Director Baran Advanced Technologies Ltd. P.O. Box 3153 Beer Sheva 84131 Israel; "Dear Mr. Koter: We are replying to your FAX of July 21, 1993, to Mr Van Iderstine of this agency, and are enclosing a copy of SAE J590b as you requested. You have asked us to identify the U.S. regulations pertaining to turn signal and hazard warning signal lights including tell-tales. The applicable regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference many SAE materials, including those regarding flashers. In addition to SAE J590b (turn signal flasher, with the exceptions noted in S5.1.1.19 and S5.1.1.20 of Standard No. 108) Standard No. 108 incorporates SAE J589 (turn signal operating unit, with the exception noted in S5.1.1.13), SAE J588 (turn signal lamps for vehicles less than 2032 mm in overall width and J1395 for wider vehicles), J910 (vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit) and J945 (vehicular hazard warning signal flasher). The turn signal pilot indicator specifications are at paragraph 5.4.3 in SAE J588 and J1395. NHTSA is not contemplating rulemaking concerning any of these requirements. We understand from Mr. Van Iderstine that you are contemplating manufacturing a device that senses the sudden release of the accelerator pedal and activates the hazard warning lamp system. Under Standard No. 108, this device is permissible as original vehicle equipment (i.e. installed at the factory, or by the dealer before sale) if it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. We assume that the device would be automatically deactivated when the brake pedal is applied and that manual deactivation is not required. We further assume that the device is not activated under normal stopping conditions. Finally, we assume that manual activation of the turn signals will override the device should it be operating at the time the turn signal control is activated. Under these assumptions, we do not believe that the device would impair the effectiveness of the stop, tail, and turn signal lamps required by Standard No. 108. However, the judgment of impairment is one made by the person installing the device who must certify (or ensure that the certification remains valid) that the vehicle incorporating the device complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that judgment is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. Mr. Van Iderstine advises that no further details are currently available on ECE agenda item 'Regulation No. 48.' Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0032OpenMr. David Busby, Busby and Rivkin, 1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20036; Mr. David Busby Busby and Rivkin 1001 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Busby: In your letter of July 13, 1967, you requested clarification of severa issues relating to the location and size of turn signals as specified in the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Initial Standard No. 108, entitled, 'Lamps, reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, and Buses, 80 or More Inches Wide Overall,' specifies that turn signal lamps shall conform to Class A of SAE Standard J588d. As stated in the enclosures to your letter, SAE Standard J588d specifies that the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam. This requirement of the SAE Standard is addressed to a single lamp with only one bulb. For a combination of lamps, such as that shown on the sketch enclosed with your letter, the intent of this requirement could be met if the optical center produced by the two bulbs is outside the 4-inch limit. The location of this optical center must be determined from laboratory test data, which was not presented in your letter.; *Proposed* Initial Standard No. 112, entitled, 'Lamps, Reflectiv Devices, and Associated Equipment - Passenger Cars, Motorcycles, and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, and Busses of less than 80 Inches Wide Overall,' would permit the use of Class B (SAE J588d) turn signal lamps until January 1, 1969. Under this provision, lamp No. 1 on your sketch would conform to the 4-inch spacing requirement. Combining lamp no. 1 and No. 2 to obtain a Class A Area would again result in the situation previously described with respect to location of the optical center.; Since your letter makes frequent reference to 'cars,' we assume tha you are primarily interested in the requirements of Standard No. 112. In this respect, we would caution you that the requirements specified therein are presently only proposed requirements, and are subject to change prior to issuance of the final standard.; Thank you for your interest in the motor vehicle safety standards. Sincerely yours, George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam0527OpenMr. Stewart N. Metz, Crane Carrier Company, P.O. Box 4508, Tulsa, OK 74104; Mr. Stewart N. Metz Crane Carrier Company P.O. Box 4508 Tulsa OK 74104; Dear Mr. Metz: This is in response to your letter (sic) of November 16 and 30, 1971 concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 to heavy duty trucks. You reported that you are unlikely to be able to bring the side door locks and latches on your truck into conformity with the standard until mid-1972.; In your first letter, you asked whether the standard will apply to al trucks or only those having a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. The standard will apply, beginning January 1, 1972, to all trucks without regard to their GVWR.; In your second letter, you requested for your trucks a temporar exemption of 180 days from the standard. We regret that we are unable to consider your request, since our authority under section 12 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) to grant such exemptions expired in April of this year.; Beginning January 1, 1972, the manufacture of any truck not i compliance with Standard 206 will be prohibited. Section 108(a) of the Act provides that; >>>'No person shall manufacture for sale . . . any motor vehicle . . manufactured on or after the date any applicable . . . standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . ' (15 U.S.C. 1397)<<<; The prohibition is enforceable by civil penalties under section 109 (1 U.S.C. 1398) and injunction under section 110 (15 U.S.C. 1399). In addition, in the event that a noncompliance were determined to be a safety-related defect, notification of the defect would have to be furnished under section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402).; Let us know if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4837OpenMr. Robert H. Jones President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 6066 Tamuning, Guam 96931; Mr. Robert H. Jones President Triple J Enterprises Inc. P.O. Box 6066 Tamuning Guam 96931; "Dear Mr. Jones: This responds to your letters of December 11, l990 and January 22, l99l, to Clive Van Orden of this agency, enclosing copies of your letters to Representative Blaz, dated July 6 and October 11, 1990, and to our Office of Enforcement dated July 5, l990. You have also enclosed a copy of a letter that Governor Guerrero of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) wrote on your behalf on October 11, l990, to Representative Blaz. Your letter to us of July 5, l990, expresses your understanding that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply in the CNMI, and that you, as an importer, have imported only vehicles that are certified as conforming to the FMVSS, however, certain of your competitors have not. You asked 'Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?' To similar effect is your letter of the next day to Representative Blaz. Governor Guerrero's letter to Mr. Blaz expresses his opinion that the FMVSS do not apply in the CNMI. The Governor explains: By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except NHTSA believes he means 'accept' federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since l966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979 sic . It looks like we get the law. But that is not the end of the analysis. We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for self- government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI. These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal Commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI, it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands. I t is our position that the FMVSS does sic apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration. We cannot agree with the Governor's conclusion. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966 (l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), does apply in the CNMI, as do all regulations such as the FMVSS that are issued under the authority of that law. The Governor believes that 'automobile safety is an internal affair'. For the most part we agree, but not with respect to the primacy of the FMVSS. We agree that vehicle registration, taxation, and use of the roads in the CNMI are matters properly under the jurisdiction of the CNMI. Further, the Act permits local jurisdictions to enact or continue in effect their own vehicle safety standards provided that they do not differ from the FMVSS (except as may apply to their own official vehicles). The FMVSS are manufacturing standards that apply when the vehicles are built, imported, and sold. We are sorry that your observance of the law may have put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you have specific information regarding possible violations of the importation provisions of the Act in the CNMI including the names and addresses of specific businesses or individuals, please communicate that information to Mr. Van Orden. Our sources of information are kept confidential. Although the FMVSS apply in the CNMI, it is obvious that enforcement of them by this agency is made more difficult by the absence of agency staff in the CNMI. If local government would 'move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law', then they may be enforced locally. I cannot think of a single one of the FMVSS that would not be of benefit. Although speeds may be low on the roads of the CNMI, many of the FMVSS are intended to provide crash protection at 30 m.p.h. Obviously, FMVSS that pertain to vehicle lighting, windshield wiping and washing, etc. provide protection at any speed. We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Thomas Rabago Highway Safety Coordinator"; |
|
ID: aiam0177OpenHonorable William Proxmire, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Proxmire: Thank you for your letter of August 27, 1969, to the Director Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation, concerning Mr. Eugene J. Shermeister's comments on headlamps for motor vehicles.; Enclosed for Mr. Shermeister's information is a copy of Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on lighting requirements for the vehicles specified in the standard. Standard No. 108 is applicable to new vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of January 1, 1969. In accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the initial safety standards were based on existing standards. Headlighting requirements, as specified in Standard No. 108, were therefore based on existing Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, certain State regulations and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standards. On this basis, Standard No. 108 specifies that headlamps for all vehicles except motorcycles conform to SAE Standards J579a and J580a, entitled, respectively, 'Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles' and 'Sealed Beam Headlamp.' To provide protection from blinding effects to oncoming drivers, SAE Standard J579a specifies a maximum lamp output of 37,500 candlepower. This candlepower value is considerably less than the candlepower output of quartz iodine type headlamps.; As indicated in paragraph S2 of Standard No. 108, the standard i applicable to lighting on new vehicles and not to replacement lighting equipment. Except for vehicles subject to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, the requirements for replacement lighting equipment, as well as lighting requirements for vehicles in use, are those requirements as set by the regulatory agencies of the individual states.; The National Highway Safety Bureau is sponsoring a research contract o improved forward lighting for motor vehicles. Results of this contract will not only provide us with well-founded data for use in amending the standard, but will also assist us in evaluating the relative merits of sealed beam, quartz iodine and other types of headlamps.; Sincerely, W. M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
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.