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: aiam5628OpenMr. Lawrence A. Beyer Attorney at Law 674 Lake Road Webster, NY 14580; Mr. Lawrence A. Beyer Attorney at Law 674 Lake Road Webster NY 14580; Dear Mr. Beyer: This responds to your August 28, 1995, 'Petition fo Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance'. You state that 'the noncompliance relates to' 49 CFR Part 592. The effect of an inconsequentiality determination is to relieve a manufacturer of its obligation to notify and remedy when a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or a safety related defect is determined to exist. The failures you attributed to your client as a registered importer under part 592 do not encompass a failure to bring vehicles into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the existence of a safety related defect in vehicles that it has imported. Therefore, there is no legal basis for your 'petition'. Please read 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and 49 CFR Part 556. The proper forum for your arguments is in response to any penalty the agency may propose to impose on your client for its failure to meet the requirements of Part 592. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2417OpenMr. N. Harada, Yokohama Tire Corp., 1530 Church Road, Montebello, CA 90640; Mr. N. Harada Yokohama Tire Corp. 1530 Church Road Montebello CA 90640; Dear Mr. Harada: I am writing to confirm your October 15, 1976, telephone conversatio with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR Part 575.104).; As Mr. Schwimmer explained, (i) the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration has not yet established new effective dates for the UTQGS regulation, (ii) when the new effective dates are established, they will be announced in the Federal Register, and (iii) the interval between the announcement of the effective dates and the dates themselves will be sufficient to allow manufacturers to prepare for compliance with the regulation.; For your convenience, an information sheet entitled 'Where to Obtai Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' is enclosed.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1391OpenMr. Bernard Belier, U.S. Resident Engineer for Maserati, S.p.A., Officine Alfieri Maserati, S.p.A., Modena, Italy; Mr. Bernard Belier U.S. Resident Engineer for Maserati S.p.A. Officine Alfieri Maserati S.p.A. Modena Italy; Dear Mr. Belier: This is in replay to your letter of January 22, 1974, asking whethe paragraph S4.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 precludes the mounting of rear lamps in a transparent 'Lexan' panel 'not involved in the driver's rearward vision.'; Paragraph S4.3.1 states in pertinent part that '. . . each lamp . . shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair . . . .' The 'glazing' referred to is the glazing regulated by Standard No. 205, and refers generally to glazing used in windshields, windows, doors, and interior partitions. Accordingly, Standard No. 108 does not preclude the mounting of rear lamps in the 'Lexan' panel.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4469OpenMr. Jay Costa Assistant Procurement Specialist Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg., 821 Second Ave. Seattle, Washington 98104; Mr. Jay Costa Assistant Procurement Specialist Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. 821 Second Ave. Seattle Washington 98104; "Dear Mr. Costa: I am responding to your letter seeking a interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Specifically, you expressed concern that some transit system passengers are opening the rear emergency exits on your public transit vehicles. Apparently, some passengers open these emergency exits to commit acts of vandalism. You state that 'in the interest of safety the rear emergency window (in these vehicles) should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window.' You asked whether Standard 217 would prohibit your body shop from modifying your transit buses in this manner. Assuming that your body shop does not hold itself out to the public as a business that repairs motor vehicles for compensation, the shop would not be prohibited from modifying the buses as you describe. Under paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard 217, buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more (such as your transit buses) must have at least one rear emergency exit, unless the configuration of the bus precludes installing an accessible rear exit. The manufacturer of your buses has stated that the bus configuration does not preclude installing an accessible rear exit. Therefore, your manufacturer must deliver buses that are equipped with a rear emergency exit. On the other hand, your repair shop is subject to different considerations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits certain commercial establishments from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design included on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In your example, the rear emergency exit is an element of design included in the buses in compliance with an applicable safety standard, and removing these exits would render inoperative that element of design. However, the 'render inoperative' prohibition applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. A 'motor vehicle repair business' is defined in /108(a)(2)(A) as 'any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.' Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard. Assuming that your transit system body shop does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles for compensation, it can make the modification you describe without violating any Federal requirements. The problem you describe apparently involves the design for releasing the kind of emergency window exit in your vehicles. Standard 217 does not require a specific design for releasing an emergency exit. Rather, the Standard sets out a ceiling for the magnitude of force necessary to release the exit, and a required direction for applying the release force. The transit system could replace the 'operable' rear emergency window with a push-out window or other type of design that would still meet the release requirements of Standard 217, yet make it difficult or impossible for a passenger to commit the acts of vandalism you describe. Please note that the purpose of our emergency exit requirements for buses is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit in the event of an emergency. Though nothing prohibits you from modifying the vehicles to close off the rear emergency exit, I urge you to give your fullest consideration to the implications of making this modification. It is NHTSA's position that compliance with Standard 217 is the safest way to facilitate vehicle exit in an emergency, and it is my opinion that you needn't eliminate the rear window exit to resolve your problem. Further, you might want to check with the State of Washington to learn if it prohibits modifications that would make your transit buses no longer comply with Standard 217. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0979OpenMr. Robert L. Scates, R.R. No. 1, Box 168, Prairie Farm, WI 54762; Mr. Robert L. Scates R.R. No. 1 Box 168 Prairie Farm WI 54762; Dear Mr. Scates: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1973, requestin information on requirements regarding the manufacture of truck-mounted campers. You specifically mention requirements dealing with wiring.; There are several Federal requirements applicable to campers. Camper are items of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) and are required to conform to certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Briefly, each camper must meet requirements applicable to the glazing materials (glass and plastics used in windows, doors, and interior partitions) used in the camper (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials', 49 CFR 571.205). Each slide-in camper must, in addition, have affixed to it a label that indicates among other things its loaded weight. (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, 'Truck-Camper Loading', 49 CFR 571.126). All campers must also be certified in accordance with Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) as conforming to applicable standards. Each camper manufacturer must submit certain information concerning his company pursuant to NHTSA regulations, 'Manufacturer Identification' (49 CFR Part 566). You may obtain copies of NHTSA standards and regulations as explained on the enclosure.; We understand that certain states also have requirements, includin requirements for wiring, that apply to campers. Information regarding these requirements should be obtained from State authorities. Trade associations that represent recreational vehicle manufacturers may be of help in obtaining this information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2944OpenMr. Sheldon C. Brooks, Marque Motors, 8711 Lyndale Ave., So., Bloomington, MN 55420; Mr. Sheldon C. Brooks Marque Motors 8711 Lyndale Ave. So. Bloomington MN 55420; Dear Mr. Brooks: This is in response to your letter dated December 11, 1978, requestin an exemption from the requirements of Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, for the Lamborghini Countach on the basis that this vehicle is manufactured for a special use under the terms of Section 102(d)(1)(B) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) (15 U.S.C. 1912). You state that the subject vehicle is purchased for purposes of show and display rather than daily transportation and therefore is manufactured for a special use.; Section 102(c)(1)(B) of the Cost Savings Act permits the Secretary o Transportation, for good cause shown, to exempt from the coverage of Part 581,; >>>'any make, model or class of passenger motor vehicle manufacture for a special use, if such standard would unreasonably interfere with the special use of such vehicle.'<<<; In adopting this section, Congress discussed 'special use' in terms o functional equipment such as winches and snow removal attachments, which must be connected in proximity to the vehicle bumper. It is doubtful whether COngress contemplated the granting of exemptions for show and display vehicles, since manufacturers undoubtedly consider their models 'works of art' and suitable for display.; |
|
ID: aiam3656OpenMr. A. Forbes Crawford, No. 10 - 905 Chilco Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6G 2R3; Mr. A. Forbes Crawford No. 10 - 905 Chilco Street Vancouver British Columbia Canada V6G 2R3; Dear Mr. Crawford: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1983, to Secretary Lewi recommending that he make an 'administrative decision' that would exempt foreign manufacturers from compliance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations for vehicles conforming to standards of their country of origin, and which are produced in quantities 'up to 50,000 per year with engines not exceeding 65 cu. in. or 1100cc (sic).'; The Department does not have the legal authority to issue a directiv of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless temporarily exempted. No permanent exemption is authorized for any type of vehicle, and no discretionary power is provided for this purpose. Authority of a nature responsive to your request could be provided only by a Congressional amendment to the Act.; As a former principal of Jet Industries which was the beneficiary o one of the NHTSA temporary exemptions (No. 76-1) and an extension of it, you are aware that a mechanism exists by which you may participate in the American market in a manner that takes into account both your economic realities and our safety concerns.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4193OpenMr. Binichi Doi, NSK Representative Office, P.O. Box 1507, Ann Arbor, MI 48106; Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office P.O. Box 1507 Ann Arbor MI 48106; Dear Mr. Doi: Thank you for your letters concerning the automatic safety belt warnin requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You explained in your letters and in conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff that NSK-Warner is developing a motorized automatic belt system that would be equipped with an emergency release buckle. You also plan to provide voluntarily a manual lap belt with the system. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.; You first asked whether you can use an automatic belt warning syste for your motorized belt system which would activate an audible signal under the following conditions: (1) the vehicle ignition is moved to the 'on' or 'start' position, (2) the motorized automatic belt is not fastened and (3) the motorized belt has not reached its locked protective position. As explained below, such a system is permissible, but is not required by the standard.; S4.5.3 of the standard sets forth the requirement for automatic bel systems. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a motorized automatic belt system to have a warning system that sounds an audible signal for between 4 and 8 seconds if the automatic belt latchplate is not fastened or the emergency release is activated and the ignition is in the 'on' or 'start' position. However, S4.5.3.3(b) does not require the audible signal to be activated until a motorized belt has reached its locked protective mode. Your system would activate the audible signal while the motorized belt is moving to its locked position and it would sound again once it has reached its locked position. Thus, NSK is voluntarily providing a warning that is not required by the standard. As stated in the preamble to the November 6, 1985 notice (50 FR 46063) adopting the new warning system requirements for automatic safety belts, a manufacturer is free to provide additional features as long as the features required by the standard still continue to comply with all the applicable performance requirements. Thus, as long as the warning system provides the warning required by S4.5.3.3(b), NSK may voluntarily provide additional warnings as well.; You also said that NSK is planning to provide an automatic belt warnin system for both the driver's and right front passenger's seating position. S4.5.3.3(b) requires an automatic belt warning system only at the left front designated seating position. Thus, the agency would consider the passenger side warning system as a voluntary system, which you may install as long as the driver's warning system will continue to meet all applicable requirements.; You also asked several questions about when and how long the audibl and light warning are to be activated. Specifically you asked whether the warnings must be reactivated when the tongue of an emergency release buckle (referred to as an ERB in your letter) is inserted into the latch mechanism and then removed again within a few seconds. You also asked if the warnings can be de-activated by insertion of the tongue of the emergency release buckle before expiration of the 4-8 seconds specification for the audible warning and the 60 second specification for activation of the warning light. As explained below, if the emergency release buckle has been fastened and then unfastened after a few seconds, the warning does not have to be re-activated until after the ignition switch has been turned 'off' and then turned again to the 'on' or 'start' position. Also if the warning begins to activate and then the emergency release buckle is fastened, the warning may immediately be cancelled and thus does not have to be activated for the full time period specified in the standard.; S4.5.3.3(b) provides that the audible warning and the warning light ar to be activated only under certain conditions. Thus, the standard provides that the warnings are to be activated when condition A (the ignition switch is in the 'on' or 'start' position) *exists simultaneously* with one of the other conditions, such as condition B (the emergency release buckle not being fastened). Thus, if the emergency release buckle is unfastened and, at the same time, the ignition is in the 'on' or 'start' position, the warnings must activate. However, if the ignition is not in the 'on' or 'start' position and the emergency buckle is released, then the warnings do not have to be activated. The agency has previously said, such as in a June 17, 1981, letter to Chrysler, that the warning is not to activate if the safety belt is buckled. Thus, the warning may be cancelled once the emergency release buckle is fastened.; Again, I regret the delay in our response. If you have any furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4039OpenMr. William R. Fink, President, Isis Imports, Ltd., P.O. Box 2290, U.S. Custom House, San Francisco, CA 94126; Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 U.S. Custom House San Francisco CA 94126; Dear Mr. Fink: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1985, to the forme Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt. Your company, Isis Imports, is an importer of Morgan passenger cars, and has heretofore imported them pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iii). Upon advice of your attorney you have concluded that you may instead import them pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix), and wish to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of that fact.; More specifically, under 12.80(b)(1)(iii) an importer declares that hi vehicles was not manufactured in conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but that it has been, or will be, brought into conformity, he also is required to furnish a bond for the production of a conformity statement. Under 12.80(b)(1)(ix), the importer simply declares that the vehicle is an 'incomplete vehicle' as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, no bond is required as it is assumed that the vehicle will be completed to conform to the Federal safety standards and bear the certification of its final- stage manufacturer. Because the Morgans are received from Morgan Motor Company without 'major components of the fuel system: no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc.,' you believe that they are 'incomplete vehicles,' which are defined by S568.3 as 'an assemblage consisting as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations...to become a completed vehicle.'; We disagree with your conclusion. The rulemaking history of Part 56 clearly shows that the intent of the regulation is to cover vehicles whose manufacture has customarily been shared. As the agency commented in 1970, 'A large number of heavy vehicles of all types, of recreational vehicles, and of special purpose vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages, of which the first is an incomplete vehicle such as a stripped chassis, chassis cowl, or chassis cab to which one or more subsequent manufacturers add components to produce a completed vehicle.' (35 FR 4639) The Morgan, on the other hand, is a passenger car ordinarily manufactured in a single stage, and in this instance is nonetheless virtually complete when it arrives in the United States. It is therefore a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), and the agency will not accept any HS-7 forms evidencing attempts to enter the vehicles pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix).; I enclose copies of a couple of rulemaking proposals on Part 568 s that you might have a better understanding of its thrust. Were we to accept your interpretation, S568.4(a) would require Morgan Motor Company to furnish a document with each vehicle advising Isis how compliance with each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard might be affected by its final manufactured operations. Given the decision of Peter Morgan over the years not to conform his vehicles for the American market, we question whether he would furnish a document attesting that his product complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except 301, *Fuel System Integrity*.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3206OpenMr. Y. Matsumoto, Vice President, N.S. International, Ltd., 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Rm. 2540, Los Angeles, California 90036; Mr. Y. Matsumoto Vice President N.S. International Ltd. 5670 Wilshire Boulevard Rm. 2540 Los Angeles California 90036; Dear Mr. Matsumoto: Please accept my apologies for our delay in responding to your inquire of January 14, 1980 and November 30, 1979. Your letters concerned the potential compliance of your company's odometers with the proposed amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*, and were accompanied by 4 speedometer/odometer assemblies for use on motorcycles.; The agency is now preparing to issue the final rule concerning th March 22, 1979 notice of proposed rulemaking, but due to Federal law and Department policy we cannot discuss its contents with your at this time. I believe that the final rule which will be published in the near future, will be responsive to your questions. We would be happy to send you a copy as soon as it is published. If after reading it, you have further questions please let me know. Please note that we are returning your speedometer/odometer assemblies under separate cover.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.