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: aiam5300OpenMs. Jane L. Dawson Specifications Engineer Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point, NC 27261; Ms. Jane L. Dawson Specifications Engineer Thomas Built Buses Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point NC 27261; "Dear Ms. Dawson: This responds to your questions about a December 2 1992, rule that amended Standard No. 111, Rear-view mirrors, by establishing field-of-view requirements around school buses (57 FR 57000). The rule amended Standard No. 111 to require a bus driver to be able to see, either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of and along both sides of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your first question asks: Are we required to certify that the mirror system has the ability to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system has been adjusted? Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each new vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicle complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). NHTSA evaluates a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards using the test procedures and conditions specified in the FMVSS's. Standard 111 requires that specified areas must be visible when viewed from the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female (S9, S13). The test procedures of S13 state that, when testing a school bus, NHTSA will adjust an adjustable mirror to the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female before the test, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations (S13.3). Of course, to comply with Standard 111, the mirror will have to be able to be adjusted to the required location at the time NHTSA tests the vehicle. Your second question asks: Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area straight down from the mirrors and 200 feet rearward? In an October 21, 1993, telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you ask whether S9.2 of Standard 111 requires measurement beginning at the ground below the System A mirror (and extending at least 200 feet behind that plane). The answer is yes, the mirror must provide a view of the area straight down from that mirror and extending 200 feet rearward. Section S9.2 states that each school bus must have two outside rearview mirror systems: A System A driving mirror and a System B convex cross view mirror. The System A mirror on the left side of the bus is required by S9.2(b)(2) to provide a view of 'the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, and of that area of the ground which extends rearward from the mirror surface not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet)' (emphasis added). Please note that the agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition in which Blue Bird Body Company has requested that the agency amend Standard No. 111, with respect to System A driving mirrors. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0102OpenMr. R. Debesson, General Secretary, European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, 49, Rue Barathon, 03-Montlucon - France; Mr. R. Debesson General Secretary European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation 49 Rue Barathon 03-Montlucon - France; Dear Mr. Debesson: This is in response to your letter of may 24, requesting (1) a footnot to Table 1-A to provide that equivalent millimeter designations may be marked on tire sizes in addition to the dimension sizes in inches, and (2) a footnote to Table 1-C t to provide that the tire sizes provided in this table can be marked on the tire by giving the millimeter equivalent either before or after the size designation in inches.; We do not consider that Table 1-A of the standard, as presentl written, prohibits equivalent marking in millimeters as long as the conversion from inches to millimeters is exact and the tire meets the size and load carrying requirements shown in Table 1-A.; Similarly, we do not consider that the standard as presently writte prohibits the marking of the tire with equivalent millimeter sizes before or after the marking which gives the size of the tire in inches.; In view of the above, a footnote is not considered necessary. Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations |
|
ID: aiam2095OpenMr. James E. Harris, President, Willamette, Wheel Inc., 1235 Se. E. Grand, Portland, OR 97214; Mr. James E. Harris President Willamette Wheel Inc. 1235 Se. E. Grand Portland OR 97214; Dear Mr. Harris: This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1975, askin whether you are required to have a 'manufacturers number' as a result of modification work you perform on Datsun pickups.; It appears from your letter that you are a vehicle alterer as define in 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed). As an alterer, you are not necessarily a manufacturer and are not required to file the identifying information required by 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed). However, as an alterer, you must affix a label to the vehicle stating that as altered, the vehicle conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label described in your letter does not meet the requirements of 49 CFR 567.7.; If you have any further questions, please let us know. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4842OpenLoren Thomson, Esq. Thomson & Weintraub 105 North Center Street P.O. Box 3577 Bloomington, IL 61702-3577; Loren Thomson Esq. Thomson & Weintraub 105 North Center Street P.O. Box 3577 Bloomington IL 61702-3577; "Dear Mr. Thomson: This responds to your letter to Dorothy Nakama of m staff in which you asked for an explanation of the responsibilities of installers and repairers of motor vehicle glazing. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Nakama, you asked that we provide a response to the following two questions: 1) Would it be a violation of Federal law if, after fixing a broken or cracked windshield, an aftermarket business still did not make the windshield comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205? 2) What would be the consequences if an installer knowingly installed in a motor vehicle new glazing that did not comply with Standard No. 205? Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966 (Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the safety standards we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Standard No. 205 establishes performance requirements for all windows (called 'glazing' in the standard) in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement windows for motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, sell, or introduce into interstate commerce any new vehicle or new replacement window that does not conform with the performance requirements of Standard No. 205. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies to the motor vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale to a consumer, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' Your first question asked whether it would be a violation of Federal law if, after fixing a broken or cracked windshield (by repairing instead of replacing it), an aftermarket business still did not make the windshield comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. The answer depends upon whether or not the vehicle with the broken or cracked windshield has already been sold to a consumer. If the vehicle has not yet been sold to a consumer, the 'aftermarket business' would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act if the vehicle with the repaired or replaced windshield did not comply with Standard No. 205 in all respects. As noted above, that section of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, importing, or introducing into interstate commerce any new vehicle that does not comply with Standard No. 205. Thus, even if a windshield is broken while a vehicle is being delivered from the factory to a new car dealer, the windshield that is in the new vehicle when it is delivered to the first purchaser must meet all requirements of Standard No. 205. Once the vehicle has been sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale, any repairs or replacement of the windshield would not violate the 'render inoperative' prohibition in the Safety Act. I have enclosed a September 3, l98l letter to the National Glass Dealers Association explaining that NHTSA does not consider repairing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205, even if the repaired windshield does not meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or event which damaged the windshield in the first place, not the repair shop, to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205. Upon reconsideration, we reaffirm this interpretation. Your second question asked about the consequences of an installer knowingly installing in a motor vehicle new glazing that did not comply with Standard No. 205. This would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, because the installer would be introducing into interstate commerce an item of motor vehicle equipment (the windshield) that did not comply with the applicable safety standard. By so doing, the installer would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each time it installed a noncomplying windshield, per section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398). I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0552OpenMr. H. H. Damman, Marketing Administration Manager, Manitowoc Engineering Company, 500 South 16th Street, P. O. Box 70, Manitowoc, WI 54220; Mr. H. H. Damman Marketing Administration Manager Manitowoc Engineering Company 500 South 16th Street P. O. Box 70 Manitowoc WI 54220; Dear Mr. Damman: I apologize for the delay in answering your letter regarding Part 566 Manufacturer Identification and Part 567, Certification. You describe the machines you manufacture and ask whether you are a final-stage manufacturer within the meaning of the regulation and therefore required to submit information regarding your products.; Part 566 and 567 apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and moto vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. 'Motor vehicle' is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.`; Since the truck cranes you describe appear from the information yo provide us to have a primary purpose of transporting the cranes on public highways, you are considered a manufacturer of motor vehicles and thus you are covered by Parts 566 and 567. Because you 'mount the crane upperworks and outrigger assemblies to the carrier' you are a final-stage manufacturer as defined in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, and are required to submit information to us under these regulations. As a manufacturer of motor vehicles you are also required to submit information under Part 573, Defect Reports.; I enclose copies of Parts 566, 567, 568, and 573 for your reference. have also attached a description of Government Printing Office documents services which cover NHTSA rulemaking developments.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4511OpenMr. Joseph J. O'Brien Chairman of the Board ITD Industries, Inc. 2544 Terminal Drive South St. Petersburg, FL 33712; Mr. Joseph J. O'Brien Chairman of the Board ITD Industries Inc. 2544 Terminal Drive South St. Petersburg FL 33712; "Dear Mr. O'Brien: This responds to your letters of January 29, 1988 and March 15, 1988, requesting a determination concerning the installation of one of your products in used vehicles. You enclosed a sample of a clear plastic film with a scratch-resistant coating on it and a pressure sensitive adhesive used to attach the plastic film to the glass. You asked whether it is 'legal to retrofit existing cars of windshields with a 4 mil clear film with a scratch-resistant coating that meets the anti-lacerative windshield spec as far as scratch resistance..' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process in which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued Standard 205, Glazing Material (49 CFR 571.205), which establishes performance criteria for the types of glazing that may be used in various types and locations of motor vehicles. Your clear plastic film is not itself glazing material, so it does not have to comply with the requirements of Standard 205. Even though Standard 205 does not apply specifically to your product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. Clear plastic film would be considered motor vehicle equipment, under section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Thus, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would be subject to the requirements in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. You also should be aware of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Standard 205 specifies 14 performance elements with which glazing might not comply if your clear plastic film were installed. If the application of your film to windshields in used vehicles would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with these provisions of Standard 205, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that applied your film would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each application, as specified in section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398). If the windshield continues to comply with the requirements of Standard 205 after application of this film, it may legally be installed by any business. Because of this potential liability, a repair shop or other business that installs glazing films may ask your company to provide some assurance that the motor vehicle windshield, as modified by the installation of your film, continues to meet the performance requirements set forth in Standard 205. Please note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Federal law permits individual vehicle owners to install any materials on the glazing in their vehicles, regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 205. However, the individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from installing certain films on their own vehicles. I appreciate your interest in safety and your desire to ensure that your company complies with all Federal requirements. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1713OpenMr. Ronnie A. Pruett, P. O. Box 830, Concord, NC, 28025; Mr. Ronnie A. Pruett P. O. Box 830 Concord NC 28025; Dear Mr. Pruett: This is in response to your letter of November 13, 1974, in which yo request confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's position concerning the testing of products which this agency regulates.; As I stated when I discussed this matter with you, NHTSA's concern i not with the testing procedure a manufacturer utilizes to ensure compliance, but rather that the product complies when NHTSA tests it. Therefore, as you point out, manufacturers should exercise due care that their products will meet the requirements of the standard when tested by NHTSA under the procedures specified in the standard. There is no need to ritualistically test each variant, such as color, of a product if the manufacturer has good reason to believe that the varying quality does not affect the safety performance in question.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0801OpenMr. Tatsuo Kato, Engineering Representative, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Tatsuo Kato Engineering Representative Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1972, requestin confirmation of your understanding of the phrase 'the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage', as used in S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210.; You indicate that the buckle in the proposed Nissan belt system i attached to the seat structure by a rigid bracket. The nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage appears to be correctly shown in each of the drawings attached to your letter. The installation shown in the upper drawing is, as you suggest, the only one of the four that would meet the location requirements of S4.3.1.3.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3684OpenConfidential; Confidential; Dear Confidential: This is in reply to your letter of February 24, 1983, asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; The last sentence of paragraph S5.3.1 is: >>>'If a motorcycle is equipped with self-proportioning or antiloc braking devices utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control.'<<<; You have asked if your interpretation is correct that this sentenc does not preclude the use of single control braking systems which do not incorporate 'self-proportioning' or 'antilock' braking devices. Your interpretation is correct, (sic) The sentence establishes a requirement that applies only to those self-proportioning devices with a single control. It does not require a second control nor does it preclude a single control system without proportioning devices.; You have also asked that we provide clarification as to wha self-proportioning means. This term includes any brake input device the actuation of which applies braking torque to both the front and rear wheels. Use of such a self-proportioning device does not preclude additional brake actuation devices. Examples include certain current model Moto Guzzi motorcycles.; As you have requested the publicly available copies of your letter an this response shall not include your name and address. If you have any further questions, we shall try to answer them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4141OpenMr. H. Moriyoshi, Executive Vice President and General Manger, Mazda (North America), Inc., 24402 Sinacola Court, Farmington Hills, MI 48018; Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manger Mazda (North America) Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills MI 48018; Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of th requirements of Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below. Your incoming letter has been granted confidential treatment in accordance with 49 CFR Part 512, so it will not be forwarded to the docket along with this response.; First, you asked whether your marking system would be subject to th performance requirements for labels, set forth in S541.5(d)(1), or the performance requirements for other means of identification, set forth in S541.5(d)(2). You indicated in your letter that this marking system would affix the required marking to engines and transmissions. Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings 'must be *affixed* by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section or *inscribed* by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section' (Emphasis added). This requirement means that all markings that are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, screws, rivets, or welding, must satisfy the performance requirements for labels set forth in S541.5(d)(1).; Second, you asked whether your marking system would appear to satisf the theft prevention standard's performance requirements for labels. You stated in your letter that you know it is your company's responsibility to certify compliance with the standard, but that this agency's 'opinions and comments' on whether the marking system appears to comply with the theft prevention standard would be highly appreciated.; As you noted in your letter, section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicl Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each *manufacturer* to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this agency does not approve, endorse, or certify that any manufacturer's marking system complies with the theft prevention standard. We will, however, state whether a particular marking system appears to comply if we are provided with sufficient information on which to base that opinion. In this case, your letter simply does not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion.; You sought NHTSA's opinion as to whether your marking system appears t comply with the 'footprint' requirement specified for labels in S541.5(d)(v)(B). That section requires that removal of the label must 'discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present.' For us to offer an opinion in this area, we must have some way to determine what remains on a part after the affixed label is removed. Ideally, we would have several labels affixed to a metal section by the means described in your letter. We could then remove the labels and examine the metal section for a 'footprint'. At a minimum, we need some means of determining what the 'footprint' would be if these labels were removed, and whether such 'footprint' would give investigators evidence that a label was originally present.; Please feel free to contact me if you need some further explanation o our theft prevention standard or if you wish to provide additional information so that we can offer an opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements set forth in S541.5(d)(v)(B).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.