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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam5467OpenMr. Michael Love Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno, Nevada 89520-3911; Mr. Michael Love Manager Compliance Porsche Cars North America Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno Nevada 89520-3911; Dear Mr. Love: We have received your letter of November 29, 1994 asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 591. Specifically, Porsche wishes to import vehicles for the Canadian market through the Port of Charleston, where certain processing activities will be performed on the cars before they are exported to Canada. The temporary importation of Canadian-market cars would be through 591.5(c) which allows importation 'solely for export', provided that the vehicle is so labeled. You have asked for our concurrence in your interpretation of 591.5(c). We agree that Porsche may import and export Canadian-market cars under this section of the importation regulation. You foresee a situation in which 'a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U.S. customer'. Porsche would like to be able to convert the vehicle to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards after importation and before it leaves Porsche's control. Porsche would also like to be able to re-import from Canada into the U.S. vehicles that would be converted to U.S. specifications. You have asked for confirmation that these operations would also be permissible under 591.5(c). Importation of noncomplying motor vehicles into the United States and their subsequent conversion to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be accomplished through the mechanisms established by Congress in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (now 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.). First, NHTSA must have decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. Second, a vehicle intended for sale must be imported under bond by one who has been designated a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, who will undertake to bring the vehicle into compliance and to submit appropriate proof of this to NHTSA. Porsche may become a Registered Importer by filing an application under Part 592. If a vehicle intended for the Canadian market has been temporarily imported under 591.5(c), and Porsche then wishes to convert it to U.S. specifications rather than export it to Canada, you should telephone Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (202-366-2830), to apprise him of the situation. We see no problem in this as long as NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation and Porsche provides a compliance package, in accordance with the requirements of Parts 592 and 593. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0235OpenMr. Kenneth L. Rosenberger, 22112 A Sherman Avenue, Riverside, California 92508; Mr. Kenneth L. Rosenberger 22112 A Sherman Avenue Riverside California 92508; Dear Mr. Rosenberger: This is in reply to your letter of April 18, 1970, concerning the us of tires designed for racing purposes for street use.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *e seq.*) prohibits the sale of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. therefore, it would be a violation of the Act if someone manufactured or sold a passenger tire that did not meet Standard No. 109. However, the Act does not apply the use of non-conforming tires so that it would be the sale of such tires for street purposes, not the use, that would be a violation of the Act.; With regard to your comments that the California Highway Patro considers these tires 'OK' for street use, we understand that the restriction in the California regulations is presently limited to the prohibition of the sale of racing tires for street use but that legislation has been introduced which would prohibit the use of such tires for street purposes.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2208OpenMr. J. Trimble, Secretary General, European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, Avenue Brugmann, 32 Bte 2, 1060 Bruxelles, Belgium; Mr. J. Trimble Secretary General European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation Avenue Brugmann 32 Bte 2 1060 Bruxelles Belgium; Dear Mr. Trimble: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, which inquire about the status of the E.T.R.T.O. petition for an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, concerning tires for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability.; We expect to issue a Federal Register notice on this subject in th near future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5037OpenMr. M. K. Chaudhari Director ARAI The Automotive Research Association of India Survey No. 102 Vetal Hill Off Paud Road, Kothrud Pune-411 004 India; Mr. M. K. Chaudhari Director ARAI The Automotive Research Association of India Survey No. 102 Vetal Hill Off Paud Road Kothrud Pune-411 004 India; "Dear Mr. Chaudhari: This responds to your letter requesting th testing procedure for and test results of vehicles equipped with anti-skid brake systems. These systems are also referred to as anti-lock brake systems. You also requested the addresses of equipment manufacturers that produce anti-lock brake systems. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide you information about this topic. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act'), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards. I am enclosing a copy of an information sheet entitled, 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment,' which explains a manufacturer's responsibility under NHTSA's regulation. I am also enclosing a copy of the two safety standards issued by NHTSA that apply to brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105) and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). These standards are intended to insure the safe braking performance of vehicles under normal and emergency conditions. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that vehicles they manufacture comply with these performance-oriented standards. Nothing in these standards currently specifies that vehicles be equipped with an anti-lock device. For your information, the agency is considering proposing additional requirements that might require medium and heavy duty vehicles to be equipped with anti-lock brake systems. A copy of that notice is enclosed (57 FR 24212, June 8, 1992). In addition, the agency has issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in which the agency is considering whether to harmonize its passenger car brake standard with international standards. (56 FR 30528, July 3, 1991). A copy of that notice is also enclosed. With respect to your request for test results related to anti-lock brake performance, I am enclosing the agency's most recent report on this topic. It is entitled 'Improved Brake Systems for Commercial Motor Vehicles.' With respect to your inquiry requesting the addresses of equipment manufacturers, the agency is unable to provide such information. The following associations may be able to help you obtain this information: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association 7430 Second Avenue, Suite 300, Detroit, MI 48202 (Telephone No. 313-872-4311, Fax No. 313-872-5400) Brake System Parts Manufacturers Council 300 Sylvan Avenue P.O. Box 1638 Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632-0638 (Tel. No. 201-569-8500, Fax No. 569-0159) I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. The fax number is (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3049OpenMr. Herman L. Massie, Chief of Pupil Transportation, Department of Education, Columbus, OH 43215; Mr. Herman L. Massie Chief of Pupil Transportation Department of Education Columbus OH 43215; Dear Mr. Massie: This responds to your June 15, 1979, letter asking about the use o standard production vans for the transportation of school children to or from school or related events. In particular, you ask whether a 15-passenger Dodge Maxi-Van can be used for school transportation.; Whether a new vehicle sold for use as a school vehicle must comply wit the Federal school bus safety standards depends on whether the vehicle meets our definition of a bus. Our definition provides that a bus is 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). Thus, a vehicle that transport (sic) 10 or fewer persons may be sold as a school vehicle and need not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, a Dodge Maxi-Van capable of carrying 15 persons is a bus. If such a vehicle is sold new for use as a school vehicle, it must comply with those standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1074OpenMr. Stan Haransky, Associate Director, School Bus Manufacturers Institute, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Stan Haransky Associate Director School Bus Manufacturers Institute 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Haransky: This is in response to the two petitions for rulemaking dated Februar 15, 1973, that you submitted with respect to safety standards applicable to school buses. In one you requested that future standards applicable to school buses become effective on January 1, rather than September 1 as is customary with respect to passenger car standards. Your second petition made a specific request that the effective date of the Bus Window Retention and Release Standard, No. 217, which is set at September 1, 1973, be delayed until January 1,1974. The reason you gave was that the normal model changeover period of the school bus industry is around the first of the year, while September 1 is in the middle of the peak production season.; Your first petition did not mention any specific standards, and i really a general request that the NHTSA take into account the normal model changeover period of the school bus industry in making effective date decisions. This request appears to be reasonable, and we will certainly consider that factor with respect to standards that are as yet unissued.; The situation is different, however, in the case of Standard No. 217 The standard was published on May 10, 1972, more than fifteen months before its effective date. We consider this standard to be a very important one from a safety standpoint. Furthermore, the public concern over the safety of school buses is at an extremely high level. It appears probable that school bus buyers, who have become very safety conscious, have been relying on this effective date in their purchasing decisions.; We have been given no evidence that this standard will requir extensive redesign and retooling, and even if it did, a four-month delay imposed only a few months before the scheduled effective date would hardly be ameliorative. We have no reason to disbelieve your statements concerning the normal changeover period of the industry, but surely at this late date the industry must have taken the imminent effective date of Standard 217 into consideration in its production planning.; In consideration of all these factors, we do not judge it to be in th public interest to grant a delay in the effective date of Standard 217 on the basis of the reason you have provided, namely, the normal production cycle of the industry. If you wish to provide more detailed information concerning technological or economic difficulties that may be caused by the effective date of this standard, we will be willing to consider it.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Acting Administrator |
|
ID: aiam4276OpenMr. John F. Doerr, 100 Lefferts Ave. 4D, Brooklyn, NY 11225; Mr. John F. Doerr 100 Lefferts Ave. 4D Brooklyn NY 11225; Dear Mr. Doerr: This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Secretary Dol on your 'Safety Light Warning System.' You have asked if your system 'could legally be implemented' and for advice 'how I may go about marketing this system.'; The patent drawing of your device depicts a light bar mounted in th rear window area with a green lamp in the center flanked by amber lamps, with two red lamps at the end. This system would be acceptable neither as original equipment on passenger cars, nor as replacement equipment on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. As of that date, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be manufactured with a red stop lamp in the approximate location of your green lamp. There is no Federal prohibition against offering the system in the aftermarket for retrofitting on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, but the system would be subject to the laws of each State in which it would be sold or used. I understand that Oregon and California allow green-amber-red deceleration warning systems when the lamps are mounted on the rear of the car, but restrictions may exist as to their mounting in a vehicle's interior.; I hope this information is useful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3419OpenMr. William W. Ardent, Midwest Polychem, Ltd., 1920 S. Kilbourn Avenue, Chicago, IL 60623; Mr. William W. Ardent Midwest Polychem Ltd. 1920 S. Kilbourn Avenue Chicago IL 60623; Dear Mr. Ardent: This responds to your recent letter asking whether the packaging sea of a brake fluid container you intend to market would comply with Safety Standard No. 116.; Safety Standard No. 116, *Brake Fluids* (49 CFR 571.116), specifie performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake fluids and their containers. Paragraph S5.2.1 of that standard sets forth specific requirements for container sealing of brake fluid packages:; >>>Each brake fluid or hydraulic system mineral oil container with capacity of 6 fluid ounces or more shall be provided with a resealable closure that has an inner seal impervious to the packaged brake fluid. The container closure shall include a tamper-proof feature that will either be destroyed or substantially altered when the container closure is initially opened.<<<; The tamper-proof feature on your proposed brake fluid package consist basically of a simple piece of adhesive that is connected between the container cap and the container cylinder. This piece of adhesive is torn in half when the cap is removed from the container, and it appears that the adhesive could not be removed from the container intact. Therefore, strictly speaking, the adhesive feature meets the requirements of S5.2.1 that the tamper-proof feature 'either be destroyed or substantially altered when the container closure is initially opened.' There may be some question whether the adhesive feature is actually tamper-proof, however, since the adhesive could be totally removed from the container without leaving any indication. Nevertheless, since the standard does not define the term 'tamper-proof,' we would have to say that your adhesive seal complies with the requirements of Safety Standard No. 116.; We believe that you should make an effort to improve the design of thi tamper-proof feature, even though it might meet the 'letter of the law' as far as Safety Standard No. 116 is concerned. For example, the adhesive seal should be more difficult to remove, or it should bear some legend indicating that the package has been opened if the seal is broken. We hope that you will voluntarily make these design improvements.; I would like to point out that this letter only represents the agency' opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The agency does not grant prior approval of the design of motor vehicles or equipment. It is up to the manufacturer to make the final determination whether its vehicles or equipment are in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to certify that compliance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1424OpenMr. Robert J. McIntosh, McIntosh & Boynton, Attorneys At Law, 1224 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Robert J. McIntosh McIntosh & Boynton Attorneys At Law 1224 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. McIntosh: This is in reply to your letter of February 19, 1974, forwarding to u for approval a draft notification letter regarding the Checker front seat adjuster (CIR-727).; The one remaining problem we have with your letter is in the secon paragraph. Because Checker is a manufacturer of motor vehicles, the appropriate determination by Checker pursuant to S 577.4(b)(1) is that the defect exists in the motor vehicles in question. Your second sentence should be changed, and may be changed to read, 'The Checker Motors Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in some 1972 model Checker vehicles manufactured from December 9, 1971, through April 5, 1972, and results from improperly installed front seat adjuster assemblies.'; We have decided to accept notification letters in which the referenc to 'some' vehicles (S 577.4(b)(2)) is placed in the sentence required by S 577.4(b)(1).; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4626OpenMr. William G. Kinstler American Flatlight Company 414 Richard Road Rockledge, FL 32955; Mr. William G. Kinstler American Flatlight Company 414 Richard Road Rockledge FL 32955; "Dear Mr. Kinstler: This is in reply to your letter with respect to portable illuminated device, called the 'Flatlight.' You have asked for our review of the advertising brochure that you enclosed, and for copies of any regulations regarding this product. I regret the delay in responding. Your brochure indicates that Flatlight is intended for mounting on the door of a motor vehicle, and connects to the battery by a wire. As shown, it contains a corporate logo, which 'emits a pleasant glow.' The purpose is to readily identify the presence of 'Real Estate Companies and other Sales Agents who need to meet clients at night.' This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It also establishes regulations pertaining to safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. As Flatlight is advertised almost exclusively for motor vehicle applications (we note a single remark that it can be used for store and window fronts), it is 'motor vehicle equipment' subject to the jurisdiction of this agency. The only Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to portable lighting equipment applies only to warning triangles without self-contained energy sources, and thus does not cover the rectangular Flatlight. The Federal lighting standard on lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, permits Flatlight to be installed as original equipment (e.g., installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before its delivery to its first purchaser), if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. It seems unlikely that the 'glow' of a door mounted Flatlight would impair the effectiveness of the required side marker lamps and reflectors, indeed the device might serve more readily to identify the vehicle at night. We surmise, however, that Flatlight is intended for the aftermarket and for installation on vehicles in use. It appears easily transferable from one vehicle to another. Installation of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is generally permissible under Federal law. However, the installation is prohibited if it is installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business and if such installation renders inoperative, either wholly or partially, equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Installation of Flatlight does not appear to present this possibility. Even though Flatlight is not prohibited under Federal law, you must still determine whether it is permissible under the laws of any State in which it may be installed. We are unable to advise you on State law, but recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. Finally, because Flatlight is 'motor vehicle equipment' you, as its manufacturer, must notify purchasers and provide a remedy upon any determination by you or this agency that it contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood 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.